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.

Meanwhile, Greenville’s Republican mayor, Knox White, said Gov. Mark Sanford should resign because it would be in the best interest of the state.

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 “soulmate” 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,” White said. “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.

Related content
Should Sanford resign, pressure shifts to Bauer 

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.

Karl Smith, a reader of GSA Business coverage of Sanford’s dilemma, said in an e-mail that lawmakers should start the process to remove Sanford if he won’t step down voluntarily.

“If he won’t resign, he should be impeached and hopefully convicted.  I hope the press starts asking the tough questions and not just the titillating ones,” wrote Smith, of West Columbia.

“I do not understand why our legislators are not starting impeachment of the governor for dereliction of duty in not passing control while he was going to take some personal time,” Smith wrote. “He just went AWOL, which he could have avoided by using proper procedures.  He intentionally left the state at risk by trying to cover up his behavior and seeming like he was still in control.  We throw soldiers in jail for going AWOL.  He is over the S.C. National Guard.  What precedent does this set?”