Juvenile offender option praised

August 23, 2010 by senatormcconnell

An internationally recognized treatment aimed at preventing the most troubled juvenile offenders from spiraling into lives of crime has gained traction throughout the country, but remains mostly unavailable in South Carolina, the state where it was developed

Supporters say Multisystemic Therapy, first researched at MUSC beginning in 1992, is more effective and less costly than putting juvenile criminals in traditional programs, which include wilderness camps and group homes.

The treatment, which caters to repeat offenders between the ages of 12 and 17, relies on trained therapists providing intensive guidance to children and their families at their own homes several days a week for up to five months.

Therapists address underlying factors contributing to children’s misbehavior, including substance abuse, poverty and domestic violence. They have small caseloads – usually around five families at once – and are on call to intervene 24 hours a day.

The program is available in 31 states and a dozen countries and is widely used in North Carolina, Florida, Connecticut and Pennsylvania. A group of Japanese officials recently were trained in Charleston.

But only five counties in South Carolina offer the treatment, and supporters say it remains unavailable in the urban areas that need it most, including Charleston, which is “in dire need of a team,” according to the children and family services director of the S.C. Department of Mental Health.

Advocates charge that the state lacks the political will to divert money from traditional programs and is too broke to fund the new treatment otherwise.

“Politicians aren’t interested in saving money in a budget 10 years from now,” said Marshall Swenson, a program director for the treatment in Mount Pleasant. “They’re focused on who’s getting re-elected in November. The people who championed the research here in the early ’90s are long gone.”

State legislators holding the purse strings say no one has publicly advocated spreading the treatment statewide, which is the most likely reason its growth here has halted, they said. Some key legislators, including State Sen. Robert Ford, D-Charleston, who sits on the Senate Committee on Corrections and Penology and the Judiciary Committee, have never even heard of it.

“They’ve kept it a secret,” Ford said. “I don’t know about it, and I deal with these issues every day, and MUSC is in my district. If they’ve got something proven to work, to help raise a young person to be a productive citizen, we need to jump on it. It’s better to pay for it now than pay for jail later.”

Supporters of Multisystemic Therapy, who include high-ranking officials in the South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice, the state Department of Mental Health and the U.S. Surgeon General, said the treatment has been scientifically proven to reduce the rates of recidivism among youthful offenders.

They said other programs available in South Carolina for repeat juvenile offenders, including wilderness camps or group homes, have no data proving they are effective, and may even compound children’s problems.

Marshall Swenson, vice president of MST Services in Mount Pleasant, a private firm that receives government contracts to train therapists, said delinquents are vulnerable to gangs and become more criminally savvy during long-term stays at camps and group homes.

“If you put a bunch of bad kids together, they will learn from each other,” Swenson said. “Judges like camps because they feel it’s something positive for the kids. But you’re taking them away from their families and putting them with other antisocial kids.”

The therapy is different from existing alternative programs because it keeps children in their own homes and their own schools – the very places that are likely contributing to their misbehavior. Trained therapists require caregivers to confront their own problems and to become more involved in their children’s lives.

Therapists, who see one family up to five times a week, accompany parents to school meetings and teach them how to discipline.

“Families are usually skeptical,” Swenson said. “Sometimes they would rather get rid of the problem child and have someone else try to fix them at camp. But what happens when camp’s over? We’re usually the last best chance for setting their kid straight.”

Dale Carter, who has helped implement the treatment in North Carolina, said that state started closing group homes in July 2009 because officials there “saw evidence they did more harm than good.”

State funds then began to flow toward expanding the program in North Carolina, which now has 52 treatment groups, up from 18 last June, Carter said. “They recognized MST had better long-term outcomes at a lower cost,” he said.

Swenson said his group is “overwhelmed” keeping up with demand for training in other states, where interest and state funding have grown rapidly in recent years. “So few people are interested here where it started,” he said. “That’s the irony of it all.”

In South Carolina, the treatment is funded by Medicaid and the Department of Mental Health and is available in Florence, Greenville, Lexington, Orangeburg and Rock Hill counties. Each team has four therapists and treats about 60 families per year.

The treatment costs $59 per family per day, according to data provided by the state Department of Mental Health.

By comparison, placement in foster care costs between $70 and $142 a day per child; wilderness camps cost an average of $100 a day; group homes cost an average of $177 a day; and secure lock-up costs $300 a day, according to figures provided by the state.

While the treatment lasts up to five months, other placements can be a year or longer, officials said.

Louise Johnson, director of children and family services for the S.C. Department of Mental Health, said she has advocated making the program a statewide approach to dealing with juvenile offenders for four years.

“We can save money by serving those kids in their homes and do a better job of setting them straight,” Johnson said. Sending children to group homes and camps “is like throwing money down a black hole,” she said.

But expanding MST requires spending money up-front, and securing additional funding is difficult when state agencies already are coping with budget shortfalls, furloughs, and hiring and wage freezes, said William Byars, director of the state Department of Juvenile Justice.

Byars, a former family court judge in the 5th Judicial Circuit, said the program saves money over the long-term by keeping children out of expensive residential programs and adult jail and, by training parents, sets a good example for younger siblings.

“I know that MST works,” Byars said. “It’s a program I would like to do more of. It needs to cover the whole state to be truly successful.”

Money is the issue, he said.

“It’s a Cadillac program, but we’re just trying to keep the car running right now,” Byars said. “MST will pay out in the next few years, but what am I going to do in the next few months?”

Byars said he has overseen an effort to expand what he called the “next best option” – providing children with Department of Juvenile Justice supervision after leaving lock-ups, group homes or camps.

The supervision program, which has been in effect since shortly after Byars took over the department more than seven years ago, has contributed to a nearly 30 percent drop in the caseload for juvenile offenders during that time, he said.

Byars said he hopes MST will become more widespread in the state once the economy rebounds.

“We don’t need to rebuild the system back to exactly what was there before budget cuts,” he said. “We can rebuild it back better.”

Scott Henggeler, the director of the Family Services Research Center at MUSC who began the MST research there in the early 1990s, said beyond the question of funding, barriers to the treatment’s spread remain in South Carolina, including public and political support.

“There is not a lot of public sympathy or support for juvenile offenders,” Henggeler said. “They don’t have a lobbying group. Most people would prefer to see them locked up, but in reality, that can make the situation worse. We must deal with causes of their behavior, but that doesn’t sit as well as sending them off to camp. Politicians in general would rather appear tough on crime.”

But several influential state legislators said last week they would like to learn more about the treatment in the coming months.

State Sen. President Pro Tempore Glenn McConnell, who is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the program’s ultimate cost savings is aligned with his intention of “doing more with less.”

“We’ve got to look at the things that work and get rid of the things that don’t,” McConnell said. “We need programs with measured results and long-term savings.”

State Sen. Michael Fair, R-Greenville, chairman of the Senate Committee on Corrections and Penology, said he would be interested in hearing testimony from the program’s supporters at an October meeting of a separate committee he’s on, the Joint Citizens and Legislative Committee on Children.

“It’s an ideal topic for us,” Fair said. “I’d love for them to address our concerns. I’m all for pursuing it and seeing if money is available. Everything I know about the program is good.”

By Renee Dudley, “The Post and Courier”

McConnell Announces Streamlining Commission and Council on Efficient Government

August 20, 2010 by senatormcconnell

Columbia, S.C. – S.C. State Senate President Pro Tempore Glenn McConnell today announced he would be reintroducing legislation creating a Streamlining Commission and Council on Efficient Government. This legislation though similar to a bill he introduced last year, which unfortunately did not pass, has been fundamentally changed.

The streamlining commission will first be tasked with identifying the “core” functions of state government, as required by the South Carolina Constitution. The commission will be further instructed to quantify an adequate amount that should be appropriated to ensure the functioning of the core aspects of state government prior to funding any other programs. These other programs shall be delineated as “discretionary.” The commission shall also investigate each “discretionary” program within state government to determine what is being spent, for what purpose the monies are being spent, what goals are being accomplished, and whether the state should be providing that service, or if there is a more cost-efficient private sector alternative to continued state activity. The commission will use a zero based budgeting technique to make recommendations on what should be funded in the discretionary areas.

Senator McConnell said “it is vitally important that we undertake this review as soon as possible.” “It is time to make hard choices about how money is being budgeted. We cannot continue business as usual in Columbia. Not all programs are equally important and they cannot be funded the same. We must determine priorities for the limited dollars available. It is important for us to find every chance for savings and efficiency possible in state government, implement those now, and see if, in some cases, government programs should be privatized.”

S.C. could join states in lawsuits on immigration, health care, nuclear site

August 16, 2010 by senatormcconnell

COLUMBIA — S.C. Attorney General Henry McMaster could spend almost $700,000 in legal costs joining with other states to battle the federal government on the issues of Yucca Mountain, Arizona’s immigration law and this year’s federal health care reform act.

McMaster said the money is being well-spent, even at a time of severe budget shortfalls, and he believes the states will eventually succeed in each case.

“Somebody has got to stand up, so that’s what we’re doing,” he told The Greenville News.

Critics doubt any of the legal actions will succeed and say they are being waged at least in part for political reasons.

Sen. John Land, leader of the S.C. Senate Democrats, described the Arizona and federal health care actions as a “waste of time and money.”

“I think our attorney general has enough to do otherwise.” he said.

Larry Sabato, a political science professor who directs the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics, said almost all the attorneys general who have joined to fight the legal actions are Republicans at odds with the administration of President Obama.

“It’s perfectly within their purview,” he said of the lawsuits. “They’re permitted to do it. But of course there is a political and ideological motive. I’m not saying they don’t believe it. I’m not saying the suits aren’t justified. But of course there is a political motive.”

Professor Charles Fried of Harvard Law School, a former solicitor general under President Reagan, says the health care lawsuit is politically based.

“I do think the constitutional argument is a joke, not serious,” he said.

Sen. Larry Martin, a Pickens Republican who sits on the state Senate Judiciary Committee, disagrees that the lawsuits are motivated by politics.

“Those kinds of issues ultimately are ripe for the court to review and make a final determination,” he said.

McMaster, who once led the state’s Republican Party and was an unsuccessful gubernatorial candidate earlier this year, denied politics were involved in any of the lawsuits.

“We’ve had multiple efforts at the same time quite regularly,” he said of federal litigation.

The three issues that South Carolina has joined other states on are:

The federal health care reform act, nicknamed “Obamacare” by detractors, signed into law earlier this year. Among other provisions, the law would require the purchase of private health insurance. Those who fail to do so could face financial penalties.

McMaster joined his counterparts in 19 other states in filing a lawsuit to strike down the new law as unconstitutional, arguing the law violates states’ rights and forces states to spend too much. They also argue the U.S. Constitution doesn’t give Congress the right to force citizens to purchase anything.

The opening of Yucca Mountain, the proposed federal repository in Nevada for nuclear waste. The controversial site had already been the target of lawsuits before Obama took office and ordered officials to withdraw the federal government’s permit to use the site.

Aiken County, South Carolina and other states believe Yucca Mountain should be used for nuclear waste and have asked a federal appeals court to order the federal government to proceed with its permit.

The enactment of Arizona’s new immigration law, which among other things would require police there to check the legal status of immigrants while enforcing other laws.

The Obama administration asked a federal judge to halt enforcement of the new law, arguing it interfered with the federal government’s jurisdiction and could cause harassment of legal immigrants.

Nine states joined to ask the court to side with Arizona.

The judge ruled against Arizona last month, issuing a preliminary injunction against the new law’s most controversial provisions. The issue is due to be argued before an appeals court in November.

Experts are divided on the states’ chances.

Mark Hall, a professor of law at Wake Forest University and a national expert on the new law, said he doesn’t believe the states’ arguments are compelling.

“In my view, the prospects are slim,” he said.

“The main argument is the new federal law requires states to shoulder a large financial burden. And that simply is not factually true.

The federal government pays for most of the cost. And getting more people onto federally subsidized insurance would actually reduce the cost to the states and the communities for treating the uninsured.”

But Randy Barnett, a Georgetown Law School professor who teaches constitutional law, says a recent refusal by a federal judge to dismiss a similar lawsuit filed by Virginia means the states’ case will have to be taken seriously.

“This was a huge positive step toward a successful challenge,” he said.

“Much of what the judge said was very encouraging for the challengers, primarily because the judge said this was an unprecedented use of either the commerce or tax power.”

At the heart of the issue, he said, is an expansion of the government’s power, something that likely will be decided at the U.S. Supreme Court.

The 20 states involved in the case have hired a private law firm, but McMaster said South Carolina’s share of the legal costs won’t exceed $6,000.

Potentially more expensive, he said, is the Yucca Mountain litigation.

Lawmakers have authorized up to $665,000 to spend on the case, though McMaster doesn’t believe the final bill will total that much.

His office has hired a Columbia lawyer, Kenneth Woodington, who worked for three previous attorneys general, to handle the litigation, he said.

Gov. Mark Sanford has said without a depository, utility customers in South Carolina will continue to pay add-on fees on their bills that are designated to pay for the storage site.

In addition to 4,000 metric tons of spent fuel from the state’s seven nuclear reactors being temporarily stored in the state, South Carolina also is home to the federal government’s Savannah River Site near Aiken, a former production facility for nuclear weapons parts that is turning high-level radioactive waste into glass stored in canisters.

“This is an economic development question, a health and safety question, it’s an energy independence question and a national security question,” McMaster said.

Tom Clements, an environmentalist who for years has specialized in nuclear issues and is running as the Green Party candidate against U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint, said Yucca Mountain’s storage as currently planned cannot handle all of the high-level waste at SRS and other U.S. Department of Energy facilities.

He and McMaster agree that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is likely to side with Obama in ruling on whether the government can pull its license application to operate Yucca.

“The Sun News”, by Tim Smith, August 16, 2010

Hunley still a boon for state

August 11, 2010 by senatormcconnell

The H.L. Hunley broke the surface at 8:39 that morning, and Warren Lasch could not believe what he was seeing.

There, just a few yards away, the lost Civil War submarine was suspended in its lift cradle, sleek and slender, encrusted with 136 years’ worth of sand, shells and barnacles.

The Friends of the Hunley chairman, along with Sen. Glenn McConnell, had spent years preparing for the moment. But that morning Lasch was nearly as amazed by the armada of boats, and army of reporters, surrounding the sub – a fleet that stretched all the way to Charleston Harbor, four miles away.

“We expected regional interest, not national and international stories,” Lasch recalled earlier this week. “But it was not just a southern thing, it was a national thing, a science, history, mystery and research thing.”

That pretty much sums up the Hunley project, which is celebrating the 10-year anniversary of that milestone today. The story of the long-lost Hunley – the first successful combat submarine in history – has captured imaginations for a decade now. It is the tale of a secret project, ground-breaking technology and lingering mystery. It has brought thousands of tourists to Charleston and generated an estimated $120 million economic impact for the state.

Along the way, the Hunley has become one of the premiere archaeology projects in the country.

On Friday, the Friends of the Hunley announced the next step in this long process: a plan to rotate the sub and remove the outer shell of concretion – all that hardened sand and shell – that covers its hull. Maybe then, scientists will finally figure out why the sub never returned to port.

That’s just one of the questions that remain unanswered.

When the sub was discovered by a Clive Cussler dive team in 1995, people knew little about the ship or its past. No one knew exactly how the ship worked or even how many men were onboard – no official plans survived.

The work of Hunley scientists since the raising has filled in many of those blanks.

It was built in Mobile, Ala. in 1863, a third-generation submarine designed by a New Orleans engineer named James McClintock. The Hunley was a privateer, which means it was a privately owned ship. A group of investors stood to make a great deal of money by breaking the blockade of the harbor. After killing the better part of two crews in test missions in Charleston Harbor, the third crew of the Hunley – eight men, led by Lt. George E. Dixon – sailed from Sullivan’s Island on the evening of Feb. 17, 1864.

That night, four miles off the coast, the Hunley detonated a charge on the side of the USS Housatonic big enough to drive a train through. The ship sank in minutes.

Shortly after that, the Hunley disappeared – and stayed missing until Cussler found it 131 years later.

It took five years after that to actually recover the sub. Friends of the Hunley and the state Hunley Commission hired the engineering firm Oceaneering International to recover the sub, which was buried under five feet of sand in 27 feet of water.

It was not an easy job. Scientists insisted the sub be raised in the same attitude as it rested below the sea – listing to starboard – for fear that movement would disturb the Hunley’s interior, which was essentially where the entire investigation would take place.

When engineers decided it was too dangerous to lift the sub using a floating crane barge, the project was delayed well into hurricane season – a fact that kept Lasch, McConnell and a team of dozens nervous for weeks. But when the jack-up crane Karlissa B, which had legs that sat firmly on the ocean floor, lifted the sub that morning, it all went off without a hitch.

On time, under budget and without any injuries, Lasch said.

These days, the sub’s recovery seems easy compared to the work it has taken to decipher the clues left behind. The archaeology project is, in some respects, the envy of the scientific community. The team works in a well-equipped lab, the Warren Lasch Conservation Center on the old Navy base. It is also a true rarity: a complete shipwreck. And the Hunley’s story is one of those unique chapters of maritime history.

By Brian Hicks – The (Charleston) Post

Hunley raised 10 years ago today

August 11, 2010 by senatormcconnell

NORTH CHARLESTON, S.C. (AP) — Today is the 10th anniversary of the raising of the Hunley, the first submarine in history to sink an enemy warship. And scientists now say they’re close to finding out what caused the Hunley’s demise.

On Friday, they announced that early next year they’ll be rotating the 23-ton, hand-cranked sub to an upright position to expose sections of hull not examined in almost 150 years.

In February, 1864, the Hunley and its eight-man crew rammed a spar with a powder charge into the Union blockade ship Housatonic off Charleston, S.C.

The Confederate sub was found buried in sand and listing at 45 degrees to starboard.

State Sen. Glenn McConnell, the chairman of the South Carolina Hunley Commission, says the sub could be displayed in a museum by 2015.

A non-profit group call Friends of Hunley says about $22 million has been spent excavating and preserving the sub.

August 8, 2010

McConnell calls for audit of Patriots Point

July 30, 2010 by senatormcconnell

The state loaned a historic landmark in Charleston, Patriots Point, $9 million to repair the warship Laffey. However, that destroyer has not been brought back to the museum yet. For reasons, such as this one, Senate President Pro Tem Glenn McConnell of Charleston has written a letter to the Legislative Audit Council concerning the state-owned historic museum.

“I wrote about a three page letter to the Legislative Audit Council and asked them to do a management performance audit at Patriots Point. A management performance audit looks at how they’re performing, how are they utilizing their resources, are they doing it efficiently, where are they headed, do they have a good blue-print for the future? And, it lets in the light on their bookkeeping, their accounting, their inventory, what are they spending on consultants, lawyers, and all these sorts of things.”

Patriots Point Executive Director Dick Trammell says he welcomes the opportunity for an audit. Trammell says they have sent a letter to Senate Finance Chairman Hugh Leatherman explaining the plan Patriots Point has to pay back the $9 million. Trammell says they do not see the audit as a negative.

McConnell has 19 inquiries in the letter and says an audit of the museum could save Patriots Point. He says he sent the letter due to years of frustration.

“Years ago, Patriots Point got into difficulty. The taxpayers forgave I think almost $5 million in debt, allowed them to move forward. Since that time we find out that they are sitting on a liability, they have not kept the Yorktown up. The Yorktown is a future liability. The Laffey was in terrible shape.”

McConnell says he and other lawmakers saw the bad shape the Laffey was in, so they agreed to the loan.

“They came to Columbia and asked for a $9 million emergency loan from the taxpayers to fix the Laffey. We gave it to them. They said they could pay it back with stimulus money and they had some other plans. We made it clear it was a loan to save the Laffey.”

So, the Laffey is now fixed, but-

“Now they claim they don’t have the money to put the Laffey back because they allowed the docks to be built in too close to the ships, and you got to take the docks up to put the ship back in. That’s a $400,000 expense. Then they turn around, and they are renting space on the Cooper River where people can’t go see the Laffey, and they have it docked there, and they’re going to pay $140,000 a year to dock it there.”

But, that’s not all, says McConnell.

“And, then they turn around several months later and come back to Columbia without telling us how they are going to pay off the loan and they want authorization to take $1.2 million in Phase 1 out of their reserves to go build a new parking lot when they already have a parking lot.”

McConnell says there seems to be a contradiction.

“It’s amazing to me that on one hand you claim you don’t have the money to put the exhibit back, and then you want to build a parking lot for people to come see the exhibit, and you haven’t got all the exhibits out there and you have a big parking lot . And, if you got a reserve, why then didn’t you have the money then to put the Laffey back?”

The Legislative Audit Council will review McConnell’s request by September.

SC Lawmakers Not Deterred By AZ Judge’s Ruling

July 30, 2010 by senatormcconnell

Senators Vow To Push Similar Bill On Illegal Immigration

PICKENS COUNTY, S.C. –

Sen. Larry Martin, a Republican who represents Pickens County in the state Senate, is home in Pickens after the 2009-10 legislative session ended in June. But Martin is already thinking about next session.

“We’ve got a lot of work to do. We’ve got a big job ahead of us,” said Martin.

Some of that work is aimed at what Martin called a “top priority” early in the next session when it comes to South Carolina’s crack down on illegal immigration.

“I believe that we do have the ability to make it a state law violation,” said Martin.

Right now, cracking down on illegal immigrants is in the hands of the federal government, something Martin said is a big problem for local and state law enforcement officers.

“They know when they make that call to the immigration folks, they’re not coming,” said Martin. “What we’re trying to do is set up a policy that discourages illegal or undocumented folks from coming to South Carolina.”

A bill that Martin said would have allowed local and state law enforcement to arrest a person in the state illegally died last session because lawmakers ran out of time.
Martin said he and other lawmakers are paying attention to what’s going on in Arizona, regarding that state’s controversial immigration law.

A federal judge put most of the law on hold this week, including sections that require immigrants to carry their papers and law officers to check on a person’s immigration status while enforcing other laws.

Martin said a similar bill will be reintroduced when lawmakers go back to Columbia in January. He said it will send a strong message to illegal immigrants.

In 2008, a law forcing businesses to verify all workers are documented passed in South Carolina.
Martin said that was the beginning of the crackdown on illegal immigration.

- Mandy Gaither, WYFF News 4 Reporter

An Arizona Style Immigration Law in SC

July 30, 2010 by senatormcconnell

Barack Obama and the Democrats in Washington seem intent in having the federal government overstep its bounds. The most egregious example, not too long ago, was when Congress foisted a big-government health care bill on the American people. Across the country, people are tired of it. And now comes an activist federal judge stepping into Arizona’s state affairs and gutting its anti-illegal immigration law.

Here in South Carolina, the Senate is committed to both fighting the overreaching from D.C. and standing up for the rule of law by passing our own illegal immigration bill. Just three years ago the SC General Assembly passed what newspapers called “the toughest immigration law in the nation.” Unfortunately that plan was founded on federal immigration programs that Nancy Pelosi and her liberal regime have consistently threatened. Like failing to secure our borders, the federal government has dropped the ball on promise after promise.

That’s why State Senator Larry Grooms filed an Arizona style immigration plan in the Senate last year and why, yesterday, Senate President Pro Tempore Glenn McConnell vowed to continue the push for an Arizona model in our state when the legislature returns in January.

On the day the court decision was handed down, McConnell said, “We see today’s decision as only the first step in an important legal struggle. This ruling will not deter me from continuing to work on this issue. I am committed to continuing full steam to have a bill ready for the Senate and for us to pass a stronger Arizona style immigration bill when we return in January.”

State Senator Larry Grooms weighed in on the subject as well: “The number one responsibility of government is to protect its citizens. Because the federal government has failed miserably, the states took action to protect our borders,” Grooms says. “With yesterday’s decision the feds have failed us twice.”

Many of the talking heads are saying that the ruling will place a chill on state efforts to properly enforce immigration policy. As of right now, there are 17 states pursuing legislation in the Arizona mold. One judge’s ruling in violation of states’ rights won’t deter state legislators from making the right move.

“We’re still early in the innings of a major legal contest,” Sen. Larry Martin said in The Washington Post this morning.

The judge’s decision isn’t the end for common sense immigration reform. It’s the beginning. Will you stand with the Senate in its fight against illegal immigration, even if it means taking on the federal government too?

Please click here now and give us your thoughts on how our state legislature should best deal with the illegal immigration problem plaguing our state.

- South Carolina Senate Republican Caucus

Majority Leader Harvey Peeler

General Assembly on pace to tackle illegal immigration

July 29, 2010 by senatormcconnell

Wednesday, a U.S. district judge suspended a number of measures in Arizona’s new law to combat illegal immigration, which has thrown more gasoline on the fire, as if the issue needed it. We’ve never cared too much about the immigration issue — the people who care will fight it out and we’ll accept what comes down. But this ruling could have an impact on other states considering similar laws.

In her temporary injunction, Bolton delayed the most contentious provisions of the law, including a section that required officers to check a person’s immigration status while enforcing other laws. She also barred enforcement of parts requiring immigrants to carry their papers and banned illegal immigrants from soliciting employment in public places — a move aimed at day laborers that congregate in large numbers in parking lots across Arizona. The judge also blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants.

One of those states, naturally enough, is South Carolina. During the last legislative session, Sen. Larry Grooms sponsored a bill crafted on the Arizona legislation, and is looking to file a bill on the issue for next year.

“I’m not going to sponsor legislation that the court has said is unconstitutional,” he said. “But if we find out there legal problems with what Arizona has enacted, we’ll be able to work around it.”

Grooms said a test vote in the Senate on a budget provision that was similar to the Arizona law garnered more than two-thirds support, a sign that such a measure would pass the Legislature.

In a release Wednesday afternoon, Senate President Pro Tempore Glenn McConnell appeared absolutely committed to getting illegal immigration legislation passed, which means that it’s likely that it will be at the top of the list for the 2011 agenda. Considering the heat surrounding the issue nationally, it may define parts of next year’s session not devoted to another tough budget battle.

“We see today’s decision as only the first step in an important legal struggle,” McConnell said. “This ruling will not deter me from continuing to work on this issue. I am committed to continuing full steam to have a bill ready for the Senate and for us to pass a stronger Arizona style immigration bill when we return in January.”

S.C. GOP staying firm on immigration measure

July 29, 2010 by senatormcconnell

COLUMBIA — A federal judge has butchered Arizona’s controversial illegal-immigration law, but South Carolina Republicans pushing a similar effort are vowing to press ahead.

“We see today’s decision as only the first step in an important legal struggle,” said Senate President Pro Tempore Glenn McConnell, R-Charleston, in a news release Wednesday. “I am committed to continuing full steam to have a bill ready for the Senate and for us to pass a stronger Arizona-style immigration bill when we return in January.”

On Wednesday, a U.S. District judge struck down key provisions of Arizona’s new Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, which called for law enforcement officers to verify a person’s immigration status while enforcing other laws.

Civil rights advocates, including the S.C. Appleseed Legal Justice Center, had warned that nonwhites would be subject to racial profiling.

The issue reignited in May after months of dormancy when Sen. Larry Grooms, a Berkeley County Republican, introduced S. 1446. The bill was modeled after Arizona’s legislation but ran out of time this legislative year.

Roan Garcia-Quintana, the executive director of Americans Have Had Enough!, a backer of Grooms’ bill, said Wednesday that the proposal must be reintroduced.

“I don’t think we need to go back to the drawing board,” he said. “I think we have to push ahead. We’ve been lining up sponsors to get it done.”

Other Palmetto State Republicans reacted angrily to the judge’s Arizona decision.

Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C, who is locked in a re-election battle with Democrat Rob Miller, called it “a harsh violation of states’ rights.”

Next Page »