By John Crangle
Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter, D-Orangeburg, and Rep. Heather Bauer, D-Columbia, co-sponsored H. 3244 this past session, which would impose the costs of special elections called to replace convicted and removed elected officials in South Carolina on the ousted criminal officials themselves rather than the taxpayers.
This reform is badly needed because the costs of special elections called to replace criminal officials is now inflicted on the taxpayers at great public expense.
Our state has had in recent years many legislators, sheriffs, and other elected officials removed from office on conviction and replaced by specially called elections.
In the last 60 years, a total of 47 state legislators have been convicted of crimes and lost office, with one former representative currently under indictment. In addition, a total of 20 sheriffs have been convicted and ousted, with two former sheriffs under indictments. The now-former officials were charged while in office.
It costs taxpayers to replace ousted criminal elected officials. Replacing a state senator runs to over $100,000 because Senate districts are so large, having over 100,000 residents each.
In addition, in some cases where there are three or more candidates, three special elections are needed — primary, primary runoff, and general — all paid for by the taxpayers.
In the case of a criminal sheriff, the cost of holding two or three special elections in large-population counties such as Greenville (with 547,950 people), is even greater because so many more voters have to be served by the county election commissions.
The costs to a county and its taxpayers can run to $200,000 or more for a three-round sheriff special election.
In fact, Greenville County did hold special elections in 2020 to replace a sheriff convicted of misconduct in office and sentenced to a year in prison.
At the same time, it is generally the case that state and federal judges do not include restitution to county and state governments in their sentencing orders for any of the costs of special elections called to replace the criminal elected officials that the judges sentence to probation or prison.
In the recent state House criminal cases involving state Sens. Robert Ford and John Courson as well as Reps. Rick Quinn and Jim Merrill, special elections were called to replace all of them at public expense. All pleaded guilty to misdemeanor misconduct in office. Ford also pleaded guilty to forgery and ethics violations and was ordered to pay nearly $70,000 in restitution.
But sentencing judges did not order any restitution for the costs of these special elections which were all inflicted on the taxpayers.
Yet while in office, prosecutors said, Rep. Rick Quinn collected $4.5 million in unreported money from lobbyists for his father’s consulting firm, Rep. Merrill’s consulting firm collected over $1 million in business contracts, Sen. Courson used $159,000 in campaign donations for personal expenses, and Sen. Ford misspent thousands from his campaign account on personal expenses.
And former House Judiciary Chairman James Harrison secretly made $935,000 over 13 years that he failed to report.
None of these convicted legislators were required to pay for the special elections that cost taxpayers.
In addition, the prosecutions of elected officials caused additional huge costs on the taxpayers.
In Harrison’s case, no special elections were needed because he had retired from the House in 2012 before ultimately pleading guilty in 2021 to misconduct in office and perjury.
But Harrison caused the taxpayers to pay for the full costs of his criminal investigation and prosecution, including a five-day long jury trial in 2018, an appeal to the S.C. Supreme Court, an
eventual plea and sentencing, court hearing, and the costs of six months in state prison.
The restitution bill (H. 3244) pre-filed by Cobb-Hunter in December 2022 ahead of the 2023-24 legislative session and co-sponsored by Bauer was referred to the House Judiciary Committee.
There is good reason to believe that no taxpayer or legislator opposes the bill, which would surely be signed by Gov. Henry McMaster if it reaches his desk. But the bill gained no traction whatsoever. It officially died without a vote when the regular session ended in May.
However, it could be reintroduced for next year. Taxpayers should contact their legislators in support.
John Crangle is a graduate of the University of South Carolina School of Law and member of the South Carolina Bar. He was a member of a commission appointed in 1991 that proposed ways to improve the selection of judges. Approved changes included a ban on sitting legislators voting for themselves for judicial positions and the creation of a Judicial Merit Selection Commission to screen judicial candidates. He also participated in reforming the magistrate system. Changes effective in 1996 included requiring new magistrates to have a four-year college degree and pass a course in the basic laws magistrates enforce.
