Printed Page 440, Feb. 1
| Printed Page 460, Feb. 7
|
Printed Page 440, Feb. 1
| Printed Page 460, Feb. 7
| Senator HOLLAND spoke on the motion.
Senator WILLIAMS asked unanimous consent to make a motion that the Joint Resolution be recommitted to the Committee on Judiciary.
Senator COURSON objected.
The "ayes" and "nays" were demanded and taken, resulting as
follows:
Alexander Cork Courson
Courtney Drummond Giese
Gregory Hayes Lander
Leatherman Martin McConnell
McGill Mescher Moore
O'Dell Passailaigue Peeler
Rankin Reese Richter
Rose Russell Ryberg
Setzler Short Smith, G.
Stilwell Thomas Wilson
Bryan Ford Holland
Jackson Land Matthews
Printed Page 451 . . . . . Thursday, February 2, 1995
Patterson WaldrepWashington
Williams
The Joint Resolution was made a Special Order.
I voted against putting S. 42 on Special Order because there are technical flaws in the Joint Resolution and it needs committee work. I support the concept of the Resolution but it cannot be properly corrected on the floor of the Senate.
On motion of Senator LEATHERMAN, the Senate agreed to dispense with the Motion Period.
Senator MOORE moved that when the Senate adjourns on Friday, February 3, 1995, it stand adjourned to meet next Tuesday, February 7, 1995, at 12:00 Noon, which motion was adopted.
At 11:55 A.M., on motion of Senator MOORE, the Senate adjourned to meet tomorrow at 11:00 A.M. under the provisions of Rule 1 for the purpose of taking up local matters and uncontested matters which have previously received unanimous consent to be taken up.
Indicates Matter Stricken
Indicates New Matter
The Senate assembled at 11:00 A.M., the hour to which it stood adjourned and was called to order by the ACTING PRESIDENT, Senator PATTERSON.
The following Bills were read the third time and having received three readings in both Houses, it was ordered that the titles be changed to that of Acts and enrolled for Ratification:
H. 3370 -- Rep. Askins: A BILL TO AMEND ACT 250 OF 1991, RELATING TO ELECTIONS FOR MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR FLORENCE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 5, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE BOARD RATHER THAN THE COMMISSIONERS OF ELECTION FOR FLORENCE COUNTY SHALL CONDUCT THE ELECTIONS AND TO PROVIDE THAT ANY MEMBER OF THE BOARD MUST RECUSE HIMSELF INVOLVING MATTERS PERTAINING TO HIS ELECTION.
(By prior motion of Senator LEATHERMAN, with unanimous consent)
H. 3366 -- Reps. Meacham, Kirsh, Simrill, Moody-Lawrence, Delleney and McCraw: A BILL TO CREATE THE REGISTRATION AND ELECTIONS COMMISSION FOR YORK COUNTY AND TO ABOLISH THE YORK COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSION AND THE BOARD OF REGISTRATION OF YORK COUNTY AND DEVOLVE THEIR POWERS AND DUTIES UPON THE REGISTRATION AND ELECTIONS COMMISSION.
(By prior motion of Senator HAYES, with unanimous consent)
The following Joint Resolution was read the third time and ordered sent to the House of Representatives:
S. 446 -- Senator Bryan: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO EXEMPT THE SUPERINTENDENT OF LAURENS
COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 56 FROM THE MINIMUM SALARY REQUIREMENT OF THE
EDUCATION
FINANCE ACT WHILE THIS SUPERINTENDENT IS A
REEMPLOYED RETIREE RECEIVING BENEFITS UNDER THE SOUTH
CAROLINA
RETIREMENT SYSTEM.
(By prior motion of Senator BRYAN)
At 11:13 A.M., on motion of Senator RYBERG, the Senate adjourned to meet next
Tuesday, February 7, 1995, at 12:00 Noon.
Indicates Matter Stricken
The Senate assembled at 11:00 A.M., the hour to which it stood adjourned and was
called to order by the PRESIDENT.
A quorum being present the proceedings were opened with a devotion by the Chaplain
as follows:
Beloved, hear words of faith recorded in the Book of the Acts of the Apostles
(2:1-2) (NRSV):
"When the day of Pentecost had come,
they were all together in one place.
And suddenly from heaven there came a sound
like the rush of a violent wind..." Father of us all, we rejoice at the news from space that the American astronauts
and the Russian cosmonauts are together in space... thrilled at working together!
Thank You, Lord!
We pray a special prayer of blessing upon Your servant, our new-found friend in
faith, Dennis Datta, Executive Director of the KOINONIA in Bangladesh, with whom we
shared the period of prayer and the "breaking of bread" in Washington last
week when nearly 4,000 souls of goodwill came together from across the world to
pray... as he returns to his duties in spreading "the Word" in the
explosive region of the Middle East.
Grant, O Lord, a renewal of Pentecost... in our age.
Amen.
The PRESIDENT called for Petitions, Memorials, Presentments of Grand Juries and such
like papers. January 31, 1995 I am transmitting herewith an appointment for confirmation. This appointment is
made with the "advice and consent of the Senate," and is, therefore,
submitted for your consideration.
Respectfully, Initial Appointment, Lexington County Magistrate, with term to commence January
19, 1995, and to expire April 30, 1995:
Ms. Llewellyn H. Hames, 672 Old Friars Road, Columbia, S.C. 29210-3723 VICE
Cameron F. Crawford (resigned)
Dear Mr. Tanner:
Pursuant to the prior order of the three-judge District Court in the consolidated
cases of Statewide Reapportionment Advisory Committee v. Campbell, C.A. No.
3:91-3310-1, and Burton v. Sheheen, C.A. No. 3:91-2983-1 (D.S.C.), Senate
District Seven is submitted for preclearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights
Act. The district is being submitted because a special election must be held to fill
the vacancy resulting from the expulsion of the incumbent senator following his
conviction for federal tax violations involving cash transactions. The three-judge
panel's 1992 order drawing the existing district, 793 F. Supp. 1329 (D.S.C. 1992),
was vacated by the Supreme Court, 113 S.Ct. 2954 (1993), and the three-judge
Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. Section 51.27, the following information is submitted: The Honorable Marshall B. Williams ATTN: MARK A. PACKMAN
Dickstein, Shapiro & Morin, L.L.P.
2101 L Street, NW
Washington, DC 20037-1526 Filing opens Noon, February 3, 1995 Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. Section 51.28, the following supplemental information is
provided in connection with this submission:
This web page was last updated on
Monday, June 29, 2009 at 2:12 P.M.
Indicates New Matter
Let us pray.
Mr. President and Members of the Senate:
David M. Beasley
January 27, 1995
John K. Tanner
Acting Chief, Voting Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
320 First Street N.W., Room 818A
Washington, D.C. 20001
panel subsequently held that the use of the 1992 districts for a
special election required preclearance. This district, which has a black VAP of
47.7%, is the same district that the three-judge panel drew in 1992. The district
elected a black senator in 1992. (A district with a similar configuration and racial
composition, which was precleared by the Attorney General, elected a black senator in
1984 and 1988.)
(a) A copy of the court order embodying the change affecting voting. See Exhibit 1
(court order filed August 22, 1994); Exhibit 3 (Writ of Election calling for
special election to fill Senate District Seven).
(b) A copy of the court order embodying the voting practice that is proposed to be
changed. See Exhibit 2 (court order filed May 1, 1992, establishing court-
drawn plan).
(c) If the change affecting voting is either not readily apparent on the face of
the documents provided above, or is not embodied in a document, a clear
statement of the change explaining the difference between the submitted change
and the prior law or practice, or explanatory materials adequate to disclose to
the Attorney General the difference between the prior law and the proposed
situation with respect to voting. Not applicable.
(d) The name, title, address, and telephone number of the person making the
submission.
President Pro Tempore of the South Carolina Senate
P.O. Box 142
Columbia, S.C. 29202
Telephone: (202) 785-9700
Fax: (202) 887-0689
(e) The name of the submitting authority and the name of the jurisdiction
responsible for the change, if different. As President Pro Tempore of the
Senate, I make this submission on the Senate's behalf in compliance with the
three-judge court order filed August 22, 1994. See Exhibit 1.
(f) If the submission is not from a state or county, the name of the
state and county in which the submitting authority is located.
The State of South Carolina.
(g) Identification of the person or body responsible for making the change and the
mode of decision. See Exhibit 1.
(h) A statement identifying the statutory or other authority under which the
jurisdiction undertakes the change and a description of the procedures the
jurisdiction was required to follow in deciding to undertake the change.
Currently, the South Carolina Senate is still subject to the three-judge
panel's jurisdiction in Statewide Reapportionment Advisory Committee v.
Campbell. The court has given the Senate until August 1, 1995, to obtain
passage and preclearance of a redistricting plan for use in future elections.
On January 17, 1995, Theo W. Mitchell was expelled as the Senator for Senate
District Seven, following his conviction for federal tax violations involving
cash transactions. Pursuant to Section 25 of Article III of the South Carolina
Constitution and Section 7-13-190 of the South Carolina Code Annotated,
Lieutenant Governor Robert L. Peeler issued a Writ of Election which provided a
schedule for a special election to fill the vacancy. See Exhibit 3.
(i) The date of adoption of the change affecting voting. See Exhibit 3.
(j) The date on which the change is to take effect. The Writ of Election set the
following schedule for the special election:
Filing closes Noon, February 13, 1995
Primary Election Date April 4, 1995
Primary Run-Off Election Date April 18, 1995
Special Election Date May 23, 1995
(k) A statement that the change has not yet been enforced or administered, or an
explanation of why such statement cannot be made. Although the Writ of
Election has been issued by the Lieutenant Governor, Mr. James F. Hendrix, the
Executive Director of the State Election Commission, has been advised that
under the court order states the election should not take place until Senate
District Seven receives preclearance by the Department of Justice. See Exhibit
4.
(l) Where the change will affect less than the entire jurisdiction, an explanation
of the scope of the change. Senate District Seven.
(m) A statement of the reasons for the change. See Exhibit 1.
(n) A statement of the anticipated effect of the change on members
of racial or language minority groups. In the past, the Voting
Section has looked at whether it was possible to draw additional
majority-minority districts in the areas under consideration.
While the Senate does not necessarily agree with this approach,
even if it were applied here, District Seven could not possibly
give rise to a Section 5 violation. District Seven has a black
VAP of 47.7%. The five adjacent districts, Districts Four,
Five, Six, Eight, and Nine, have black VAP's of only 12.9%,
8.4%, 4.5%, 7.6%, and 21.8% respectively, and the black
population in these districts is not contiguous to District
Seven. In short, the minority population simply is not
"sufficiently large and geographically compact to
constitute a majority in another single-member district,"
nor is there adjacent or nearby black population which might be
included in District Seven to increase its black VAP.
Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 50 (1986). In fact,
all of the plans submitted to the court in aiding the court to
arrive at the 1992 plan drew District Seven in virtually the
same manner, including those that created more black VAP
majority districts than the court's plan.
(o) A statement identifying any past or pending litigation concerning the change or
related voting practices. Currently, the South Carolina Senate is still
subject to the three-judge panel's jurisdiction in Statewide Reapportionment
Advisory Committee v. Campbell.
(p) A statement that the prior practice has been precleared (with the date) or is
not subject to preclearance and a statement that the procedure for the adoption
of the change has been precleared (with the date) or is not subject to the
preclearance requirement, or an explanation of why such statements cannot be
made. The prior practice is the election under the court-drawn plan of 1992,
which is not subject to preclearance procedures.
(q) For redistrictings, items listed in 28 C.F.R. Section 51.28(a)(1) and (b)(1)
must be included. See references below submitted pursuant to 28 C.F.R. Section
51.28.
(r) Other information that the Attorney General determines is required for an
evaluation of the purpose or effect of the change. Because this item indicates
that the items listed in 28 C.F.R. Section 51.28 would most likely be needed
for consideration in the submissions of redistrictings and that in the interest
of time
such information should be furnished with the initial submission,
please see the information listed below.
(a) Demographic information. See Exhibit 5.
(b) Maps. See Exhibit 6.
(c) Annexations. Not applicable.
(d) Election returns: Where a change may affect the electoral influence of a
racial or minority language group, returns of primary and general elections
conducted by or in the jurisdiction may be included in the submission:
(1) Name of each candidate.
(2) Race or language group of each candidate, if known.
(3) Position sought by each candidate.
(4) Number of votes received by each candidate, by voting precinct.
(5) Outcome of each contest.
(6) Number of registered voters, by race and language group, for each voting
precinct for which election returns are furnished. Information with respect
to elections held during the last ten years will normally be sufficient.
(7) Election related data containing any of the information described above shall
conform to the requirements set out for disks and tapes. Election related
data that cannot be accurately presented in terms of census blocks may be
identified by county and by precinct. See Exhibit 7.
(e) Language usage. Not applicable.
(f) Publicity and participation: For submissions involving controversial or
potentially controversial changes, evidence of public notice, of the
opportunity for the public to be heard, of the opportunity for interested
parties to participate in the decision to adopt the proposed change, and an
account of the extent to which such participation, especially by minority group
members, in fact took place. Examples of materials demonstrating public notice
or participation include:
(1) Copies of newspaper articles discussing the proposed change. Not
applicable.
(2) Copies of public notices that describe the proposed change and invite public
comment or participation in hearings and statements regarding where such
public notices appeared (e.g., newspaper, radio, or television, posted in
public buildings, sent to identified individuals or groups). Not applicable.
Printed Page 440, Feb. 1
| Printed Page 460, Feb. 7
|