Amendment 1: Think before you vote

I know a lot of Republicans support this amendment.  I got this email today and it sums up my own issues with Amendment 1… for what it’s worth I intend to vote against Amendment 1..

Amendment 1

Beginning with the general election of 2018, must Section 8 of Article IV of the Constitution of this State be amended to provide that the Lieutenant Governor must be elected jointly with the Governor in a manner prescribed by law; and upon the joint election to add Section 37 to Article III of the Constitution of this State to provide that the Senate shall elect from among the members thereof a President to preside over the Senate and to perform other duties as provided by law; to delete Sections 9 and 10 of Article IV of the Constitution of this State containing inconsistent provisions providing that the Lieutenant Governor is President of the Senate, ex officio, and while presiding in the Senate, has no vote, unless the Senate is equally divided; to amend Section 11 to provide that the Governor shall fill a vacancy in the Office of Lieutenant Governor by appointing a successor with the advice and consent of the Senate; and to amend Section 12 of Article IV of the Constitution of this State to conform appropriate references?

Explanation

A ‘Yes’ vote will require, from 2018 onward, the Governor and Lieutenant Governor to run on the same ticket and be elected to office jointly. As a result, the Lieutenant Governor will no longer preside over the Senate and the Senate will elect their presiding officer from within the Senate body.

A ‘No’ vote maintains the current method of electing the Governor and Lieutenant Governor separately. The Lieutenant Governor shall continue to serve as President of the Senate.

Evert: Although I would like to see a change in the SC Constitution on this issue, I believe the price this amendment is asking of us is too high. If we pass this amendment, the office of Lt. Governor will have all power and authority stripped from it. Since the President of the Senate (the presiding officer) would then have to be elected from within the Senate, one of two problems will happen:

* The Senate President could follow typical parliamentary procedure and not cast a vote unless he is breaking a tie. This means that (unless there is a tie), that senator’s district would lose its voice and its vote. A presiding officer does not usually speak to an issue.

*They could permit the Senate President to vote on every issue. However, this would then give that senator an opportunity to vote twice—once as a member and again as a tie-breaker. That senator’s district would then have a double vote.

I understand that the purpose of this amendment in theory is to strengthen the Governorship by allowing the Governor to choose his/her running mate. However, this would be hollow if the Lt. Governor’s office is stripped of its authority. We do not need to strip the Executive Branch of any existing power only to hand it over to the Senate. There are plenty of good people on both sides of this debate. Many of our House and Senate members support state restructuring and voted in support of this bill and Randy Page supports this change. On the other hand, Doug Wavle, Jim Lee and I all oppose this version of the amendment, although we support the principle idea behind it (of a joint ticket). While I would love to see the office of the Governor strengthened, I believe this amendment will instead further strengthen the State Senate.

Email from : http://scpatriot.com