H 4115 Session 112 (1997-1998)
H 4115 General Bill, By Harrison, Knotts, McGee, D. Smith and Wilkins
A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 13, TITLE 1, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY
ADDING SECTION 1-13-5 SO AS TO PROHIBIT THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA OR ANY OF
ITS POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS FROM USING RACE, SEX, COLOR, ETHNICITY, OR NATIONAL
ORIGIN AS A CRITERION FOR EITHER DISCRIMINATING AGAINST OR GRANTING
PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT TO ANY INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP IN THE OPERATION OF THE
STATE'S SYSTEM OF PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT, PUBLIC EDUCATION, OR PUBLIC CONTRACTING.
05/07/97 House Introduced and read first time HJ-35
05/07/97 House Referred to Committee on Judiciary HJ-35
05/29/97 House Committee report: Favorable Judiciary HJ-4
05/29/97 House Committee Report not received--Rule 5.12 not
waived (did not receive necessary 2/3 vote to
waive Rule 5.12) HJ-4
01/13/98 House Requests for debate-Rep(s). Harrison, Cotty,
Barrett, Sandifer, Scott, J. Brown, Knotts,
Kirsh, Woodrum, Neal, Govan, Clyburn, Howard,
Harrell, Davenport, R. Smith & Moody-Lawrence HJ-65
01/22/98 House Member(s) added as co-sponsor(s): Rep(s) Knotts HJ-15
01/29/98 House Debate adjourned HJ-25
01/29/98 House Debate adjourned until Tuesday, February 3, 1998 HJ-31
02/03/98 House Debate adjourned HJ-18
02/04/98 House Amended HJ-24
02/04/98 House Debate interrupted HJ-29
02/04/98 House Member(s) added as co-sponsor(s): Rep(s) McGee HJ-14
02/04/98 House Rep. Limbaugh (Prime Sponsor)-no longer a member
of the House-Point of Order raised and sustained HJ-24
02/05/98 House Debate adjourned HJ-13
02/05/98 House Debate interrupted HJ-17
02/10/98 House Requests for debate removed-Rep(s). Govan HJ-17
02/12/98 House Amended HJ-15
02/12/98 House Debate interrupted HJ-54
02/18/98 House Read second time HJ-42
02/18/98 House Roll call Yeas-73 Nays-43 HJ-42
02/19/98 House Read third time and sent to Senate HJ-32
02/19/98 House Roll call Yeas-74 Nays-37 HJ-35
02/19/98 Senate Introduced and read first time SJ-4
02/19/98 Senate Referred to Committee on Judiciary SJ-4
AMENDED
February 18, 1998
H. 4115
Introduced by Reps. Harrison, Wilkins, D. Smith, Knotts and McGee
S. Printed 2/18/98--H.
Read the first time May 7, 1997.
STATEMENT OF ESTIMATED FISCAL
IMPACT
ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT IS:
- Indeterminable -
Given the language included in the proposed legislation, the
primary potential fiscal impact is concentrated in the flow of federal
funds to state agencies and localities. The Office of State Budget
indicates that most state agencies accept federal grants by signing
some type of contractual arrangement with the appropriate federal
agency. Included in those contractual arrangements are requirements
that the recipient state agencies adhere to the various federal laws
regarding the federal definition of discrimination. Examples of such
laws are: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, and
the Americans with Disabilities Act. Further, included in some
federal agency contracts with state agencies is language that states
that "affirmative action shall be taken to ensure that applicants are
employed and that employees are treated during employment without
regard to their handicap, age, race, color, religion, sex or national
origin."
Determining the potential fiscal impact of the proposed legislation
is predicated on several points. First, a determination must be made
as to whether the "affirmative action" requirements listed in the
contractual agreements between a federal agency and a state agency
are incongruent with the proposed legislation. Second, if such
circumstances are identified, an estimate of the legal actions taken by
federal authorities must be made. Third, if legal actions are taken by
federal authorities, an estimate of legal success by state authorities,
most likely in a federal court, must be made.
The total federal funds appropriated in the state's budget for Fiscal
Year 97-98 is $3,451,883,984. Of the 105 budgeted sections listed
in the state budget, 63 have budgeted federal funds. From a
theoretical standpoint, the possible range of fiscal impact for the
proposed legislation is from zero to $3.4 billion, depending upon the
specific answers to the points mentioned above.
Given the complexity of this issue, the Office of State Budget
contacted two agencies, the Department of Health and Human
Services (DHHS) and the Department of Transportation (DOT).
DHHS administers the state's Medicaid program which appropriates
federal dollars in excess of $1.5 billion. DOT is the recipient agency
for federal highway grant dollars which exceed $300 million. Thus,
these two agency programs combined total more than half all federal
funds appropriated through the state budget. Both agencies were
asked to respond to the possible fiscal impact of the proposed
legislation, and the responses are displayed below. Based on these
responses, there are no reliable data upon which to base a fiscal
impact. Thus, the fiscal impact is indeterminable.
According to DHHS, there is potential conflict with federal law,
rules and regulations raising concern of the possible loss of federal
Medicaid funds; however, the fact of that conflict or the degree and
scope of that impact is not known at that time.
According to DOT, South Carolina could loose approximately $300
million in federal funds by failing to carry out a Disadvantaged
Business Enterprise (DBE) program for projects funded with
federal-aid highway funds. Federal law requires that not less than ten
percent of federal-aid highway funds be expended with small
business owned and controlled by socially and economically
disadvantaged individuals. (See Pub. L. 102-240, Title I, Section
1003(b), also known as "ISTEA") Receipt of federal funds by DOT
is conditional upon DOT's carrying out a U. S. Dept. of
Transportation-approved DBE program.
Based on a Local Government Finance Report produced by the
State Budget & Control Board for fiscal year 1994-95, local
governments received a total of $98.9 million in federal funds for
fiscal year 1994-95. $51.9 million of those funds were derived from
community development block grants and housing and urban
development grants. The impact of the legislation upon these federal
funds is not known at this time.
Approved By:
Frank A. Rainwater
Office of State Budget
A BILL
TO AMEND CHAPTER 13, TITLE 1, CODE OF LAWS OF
SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 1-13-5 SO AS
TO PROHIBIT THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA OR ANY OF
ITS POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS FROM USING RACE, SEX,
COLOR, ETHNICITY, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN AS A
CRITERION FOR EITHER DISCRIMINATING AGAINST OR
GRANTING PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT TO ANY
INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP IN THE OPERATION OF THE
STATE'S SYSTEM OF PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT, PUBLIC
EDUCATION, OR PUBLIC CONTRACTING.
Amend Title To Conform
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South
Carolina:
SECTION 1. Chapter 13 of Title 1 of the 1976 Code is amended
by adding:
"Section 1-13-5. (A) Neither the State of South Carolina nor any
of its political subdivisions shall use race, sex, color, ethnicity, or
national origin religion, age or disability as a criterion for either
discriminating against or granting preferential treatment to any
individual or group in the operation of the state's system of public
employment, public education, or public contracting.
No preferential treatment may be granted to any family member of
a member of the general assembly with regard to employment with
the State or any political subdivision of the State.
(B) This section shall apply only to state action taken after the
effective date of this section.
(C) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting
classifications based on sex that are reasonably necessary to the
normal operation of the state's system of public employment or
public education.
(D) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as invalidating any
court order or consent decree that is in force as of the effective date
of this section.
(E) Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting a
public agency from obeying a court order requiring the consideration
of racial, ethnic, national origin, gender, or religious characteristics
to remedy the effects of its own past discriminatory practices.
(F) If any part or parts of this section are found to be in conflict
with federal law or the United States Constitution, the section shall
be implemented to the maximum extent permitted by federal law and
the United States Constitution. Any provision held invalid shall be
severable from the remaining portions of this section.
(G) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to prohibit a bona
fide state agency from its responsibilities to monitor and implement
state laws assuring equal employment opportunity to all persons.
(H) For purposes of this section, "political subdivision" includes,
but is not limited to, a city, county, municipality, special service
district, and public service district.
(I) Nothing in this section must be construed as preventing State
Agencies from performing their responsibilities pursuant to Section
1-13-110."
SECTION 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
employment of quotas to achieve equality is prohibited.
SECTION 3. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor.
-----XX----- |