News Summary
Senator Wes Climer has filed a lawsuit against South Carolina’s legislative pay raise, arguing that it violates the state constitution. Climer’s legal action, supported by a Rock Hill resident, claims that enabling legislators to increase their own compensation without public input undermines transparency and accountability. The South Carolina Supreme Court has expedited the case, which could have significant implications for legislative compensation practices. Climer has publicly rejected the pay raise, highlighting ongoing debates about elected officials’ salaries amidst broader public financial concerns.
Rock Hill, South Carolina — Senator Wes Climer, a Republican from Rock Hill, has initiated a lawsuit against the South Carolina General Assembly concerning a newly approved legislative pay raise of $2,500 per month, which amounts to an annual increase of $18,000 for lawmakers. Climer argues that this increase contravenes the state constitution, which prohibits legislators from augmenting their own per diem during their current term.
Filed on January 9, 2024, the lawsuit posits that the act of legislators awarding themselves public funds resembles a judge ruling on their own case or a police officer investigating their own actions. Climer is joined in this legal action by Carol Herring, a Rock Hill resident, and they are represented by former state senator Dick Harpootlian. The South Carolina Supreme Court has agreed to expedite the litigation process, ensuring a determination is reached prior to the budget’s implementation on July 1, 2024.
The contested pay raise increases in-district compensation from $1,000 to $2,500 per month for all 170 members of the General Assembly, resulting in an overall cost of approximately $3 million. Presently, legislators receive a base salary of $10,400, a figure that has remained unchanged since 1990, along with daily subsistence payments of $240 when the legislature is in session.
Legal Basis for the Lawsuit
The legal challenge is built on the argument that the term “per diem,” as defined in the state constitution, encompasses daily allowances; Climer’s legal representation asserts that combining salary and the increased in-district compensation aligns with this definition. The last adjustment to in-district compensation occurred in 1994, when it rose from $300 to $1,000 per month.
Notably, legislators are not mandated to provide receipts for the in-district compensation, permitting them to allocate the funds based on individual discretion. While 34 members of the House have chosen to forgo the pay raise, only three senators have opted out thus far; Climer has publicly declined the increase, as have several other Republican legislators. According to the state’s chief accountant, the in-district compensation is categorized as personal income and is subject to taxation, contrasting with designated per diem payments which are tax-exempt.
Procedure and Legislative Process
The lawsuit points out that the pay increase was enacted without following standard legislative procedures, including public hearings, which Climer and Herring criticize. The absence of public input is a significant concern for many, as it raises questions about transparency and accountability within the legislative process.
If the Supreme Court ultimately rules against the pay increase after it has already begun, it could pose challenges in recovering the funds disbursed to lawmakers. This situation highlights the potential repercussions of legislative actions taken without thorough oversight.
Background on Legislative Compensation
Historically, South Carolina legislators have contended with a stagnant base salary of $10,400 established more than three decades ago. The introduction of this pay raise has reignited discussions about the compensation of elected officials and the ethical implications of self-imposed salary increases, especially in light of the financial burdens faced by constituents and the broader public.
The ongoing legal proceedings and public discourse stirred by Climer’s lawsuit could have long-lasting implications for how legislative compensation is determined and reviewed in South Carolina moving forward. As the case is fast-tracked by the Supreme Court, many await the resolution that may set a precedent for future legislative conduct regarding self-initiated compensation adjustments.
Deeper Dive: News & Info About This Topic
HERE Resources
South Carolina Lawmakers Consider Reforms to Liquor Liability Laws
House Republicans Propose Massive $4.9 Trillion Tax Breaks
South Carolina’s House Passes Landmark Tax Reform Bill
Winthrop University President Receives Significant Salary Increase
South Carolina Moves to Ban DEI Initiatives with Costly Implications
Charming Charleston Faces Economic Hurdles: Tax Changes Ahead
19 Democratic States Sue Over DOGE’s Access to Treasury
Massachusetts Public Sector Workers Applaud New Social Security Law
Additional Resources
- South Carolina Daily Gazette
- Spectrum Local News
- The State
- U.S. News
- Encyclopedia Britannica: Legislative Compensation
