Fix, don't endanger, 'home rule'

We aren't surprised that alarm bells go off when there's talk of amending that section of the state Constitution that gave "home rule" to counties in the 1970s. It not only was a struggle to get lawmakers to put the "home rule" amendment on the ballot, it took them another two years to actually pass the enabling legislation. But Charleston Sen. Glenn McConnell, the author of the proposed change, says it is his aim to strengthen, not weaken home rule. Nothing less should even be considered by the General Assembly.

Officials of the state Association of Counties have told us of their fear that the McConnell proposal could actually gut the heart of the "home rule" amendment. Sen. McConnell questions why they haven't contacted him about their concerns and compares their alarms to "Chicken Little." County officials counter that they have had difficulty getting the ear of the Senate president pro tempore. This is an issue on which the parties definitely should get together.

Sen. McConnell tells us the intent of his proposed amendment is to give legislators a means of transferring to counties the power they still have over local boards and commissions that existed prior to the ratification of the "home rule" amendment in 1973. One of the most important "home rule" constitutional protections is its prohibition against lawmakers passing any new local or "special legislation."

While some "special legislation" continues to slip through, for the most part the ban against it has had the effect of stopping most lawmakers from staying involved in local governments. No longer, for example, can they pass local bills that contain the annual budgets of various local boards and public service district commissions.

But there has been a general legislative reluctance to transfer the local appointment powers they gave themselves prior to "home rule." Unfortunately, those who have seen the light in recent years apparently waited too late. According to a S.C. Supreme Court decision last year, the narrow window of opportunity for turning over those powers through "special legislation" had long passed.

How then can the transfer of the remaining legislative powers to local governments — clearly the intent of "home rule" — be fulfilled? At this point, only by statewide, not local, legislation. But that's easier said than done, according to Sen. McConnell, who notes that legislators in a number of counties can't be persuaded to give up their authority. One of the senator's prime concerns is the legality of those county election commissions that have been merged with boards of registration by "special legislation."

The senator says his proposed revision to the constitution's home rule provision is aimed at giving lawmakers ways to transfer any remaining local powers. But he would do so by once again legalizing certain "special legislation." County officials contend that change would open the door far too wide. They are expected to be among those airing their concerns at a subcommittee hearing today.

There's got to be a way to resolve this knotty problem without risking the unintended consequences of a constitutional change. That should be the goal of those on both sides of this argument.