When Governor Mark Sanford disappeared to Argentina to see his mistress, some may say he left the state in danger of disarray without anyone in charge. A Full House Judiciary Committee voted to censure the governor for this, but he still faces 37 ethics violation charges in January.

Senate President Pro Tem Glenn McConnell says he has a pre-filed bill, Senate Bill 901, that makes sure the actions that Governor Sanford took when he left the state without power in June doesn’t happen again with future governors. [Read more...]

The full House Judiciary Committee voted unanimously to censure Governor Mark Sanford Wednesday, after a seven-member subcommittee did the same last week.

Censure amounts to a public record that the governor was admonished. But the resolution does contain some pretty strong language, stating that Sanford brought ridicule and shame to the state.

What the committee did not do is vote to impeach the governor. That failed 18-6.

When the full House meets in January, the impeachment issue could be brought up again, but even proponents of impeachment say the votes are not likely to be there to even take up the resolution for discussion.

Richland County Democrat Todd Rutherford took the focus away from Governor Sanford and onto himself momentarily when it appeared that he called lawmakers considering the case “idiots.” [Read more...]

An impeachment attorney brought in by the Office of the Governor is now out of a job after Wednesday’s House committee vote to censure rather than impeach Governor Mark Sanford.

The House Judiciary Committee Wednesday voted on the censure of Gov. Mark Sanford. For impeachment legal specialist Ross Garber, this vote means his job is done. Garber is an attorney with Connecticut firm Shipman & Goodwin LLP.

He says impeachments are very rare in this country and he says his role has been an important one. “It is not unusual to have both the public official represented, and also the office of the public official represented. For example, in the impeachment investigation of President Clinton, there was a lawyer who represented the president in his personal capacity, and then also a separate set of lawyers who represented the office of the president.”

In the Clinton impeachment, then-Congressman Mark Sanford was on the other side of the issue. At that time, Sanford called for the President to step down.

Garber says it was wise for the governor to bring him in: “in the case of an impeachment , if the governor were impeached, he would be required to step aside, having the effect of essentially overthrowing a democratically-held election.  Again, that has consequences for the people as well.”

(Garber comments) MP3 1:11

Garber explains his legal role

The Connecticut attorney says he has given SC taxpayers “a very steep discount from his usual hourly rate.” His last reported rate was $150/hr.

House Speaker Bobby Harrell calls the hiring of Garber “a complete waste of money …absolutely unnecessary because all the subcommittee was going to do was to take the report  and determine whether or not the things in the report warranted removing him from office. If the governor hadn’t had any legal counsel, the subcommittee and the full committee would have come to the same conclusion.  He wasted money particulary by hiring out-of-state counsel to come in here, using state tax dollars to pay them to basically monitor what our committees did,” says Harrell.