PrintPrintA provision in the South Carolina Constitution provides for the removal of a governor who is “unavailable” to discharge his duties. The provision is silent on the definition of “unavailable,” appearing to leave the definition to a committee of four constitutional officers and ultimately to the Legislature.
By James T. Hammond
jhammond@scbiznews.com
Published July 2, 2009
At least two provisions of the South Carolina Constitution make provision for the General Assembly to remove a sitting governor, according to James Underwood, a University of South Carolina School of Law professor emeritus.
Sanford last week confessed to a year-long affair with a woman from Argentina. Over the weekend he appeared to have regained some support among the state’s political class. But that evaporated this week after he participated in a tear-stained interview with the Associated Press, describing the other woman as his “soul mate” and saying he was trying to fall back in love with his wife.
“I think he’s made himself wholly ineffective, especially in his chief duty as the state’s economic development recruiter,” said Greenville’s Republican Mayor Knox White. “We have projects in the Upstate that need the governor’s attention.”
One constitutional provision provides for the removal of a governor who is “unavailable” to discharge his duties. The provision is silent on the definition of “unavailable,” appearing to leave the definition to a committee of four constitutional officers and ultimately to the Legislature.
The constitution makes no provision for a trial, testimony or presentation of evidence in such a removal from office.
“My guess is, if they wanted to, they could make provision for evidence, or an appeal by the governor,” Underwood said.
White, who is an attorney, said he thought using that provision would be “a bit of a stretch,” unless the governor was actually mentally or physically unavailable.
The other provision is for impeachment in a case of serious crimes or serious misconduct in office. That provision is vague on how the General Assembly might convene during the period when it is not normally in session.
“The overall context implies that they would come back. That mechanism might be left to the rules of the House and Senate,” Underwood said. “We’re in uncharted waters here. I’m just giving you my best view.”
Amid a rising chorus of calls for a scandal-ridden Sanford to resign, some lawyers and politicians have begun examining the legal mechanism to remove him from office.
Sanford’s most recent statements have been that he would not resign. The General Assembly is not in session, and under normal circumstances they could not come back into session before January without a summons from the governor. But the state constitution does make provision for an extraordinary session without the governor’s summons.
The process would begin with the convening of a constitutionally dictated committee comprising the attorney general, the secretary of state, the comptroller general and the state treasurer. That committee can by a majority vote declare that the governor is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.
The governor is then allowed to respond by letter to the president pro tempore of the Senate that no such inability exists and he should resume the powers and duties of his office.
The four-member committee then has four days to notify the leaders of the House and Senate that the governor is not able to discharge his duties.
Such a declaration then would put the issue into the General Assembly to be decided. If not in regular session, the committee’s declaration would authorize a special session for the sole purpose of deciding whether the governor should remain in office or be removed. Each chamber would be required to vote in a two-thirds majority in order to remove the governor.
Print