Harvey Peeler

Supporters say plan would spur sales of 2nd homes, commercial property

The Senate gave key approval Tuesday to some real estate buyers and investors in hopes of giving a boost to property sales.

The Senate, after tense negotiations for the first month of the legislative session, approved legislation that would eliminate additional taxes at the point of sale on second homes, businesses and commercial real estate in South Carolina for sales that occur this year. Additionally, those properties would get a 20 percent tax exemption for such sales in the years after. [...]

The goal of our voting laws should be twofold: enabling and encouraging as much voter participation as possible, while protecting the integrity of each vote.

Remarkably, the South Carolina Senate has overwhelming approved just such a law. [...]

South Carolina voters could vote early starting in 2012 but must show photo IDs to cast a ballot under a compromise Thursday that ended two days of partisan debate in the Senate.

Senators said the deal, approved 36-2, would increase voter participation by increasing when people could vote, while preventing fraud.

“It means fewer lines for the voting public in the 2012 cycle, more opportunities to vote and greater confidence in the process,” said Sen. Chip Campsen, R-Isle of Palms, among a group of senators who worked more than five hours on a compromise.

The bill requires another vote before returning to the House, which passed 67-44 last year on a party-line vote.

Republicans said voting ID is an issue of integrity. Currently, voters can present either a valid driver’s license or a voter registration card. Without a photo, Republicans say, there’s no proof the person showing the card is who they claim to be. [...]

The Senate reached a compromise Thursday on a controversial Voter ID bill that phases in over two years new requirements for a picture ID in order for a person to vote in South Carolina.

The bill also establishes a new 15-day early voting period prior to elections, maintains walk-in absentee voting for 30 days prior to an election and retains mail-in absentee voting beginning at 45 days before an election.

The photo identification requirement takes effect Jan. 2, 2012, and the State Election Commission must begin issuing voter registration cards with photo ID by July, 1, 2011, pending state funding being made available for the cards.

The system carries an educational, public outreach component, so that currently-registered voters for whom obtaining a photo identification may pose a difficulty, could be assisted.

The compromise proposal must be cleared by U.S. Justice Department and still must go back to the S.C. House for its consideration and passage.

“This is another example of the Senate at its finest hour,” said Sen. Glenn McConnell, R-Charleston, Senate president pro-tempore.

“There were some strong feelings in this body. This is one of the most divisive issues I’ve seen come before this body,” he said.

Republicans were pushing the original bill, which mandated a photo ID and set early voting at 16 days prior to an election. They contended the new law was needed to pre-empt potential voter fraud in the state.

Democrats rebelled, saying the measure was a strike to impair access to a basic American right – the right to access to the ballot box.

The sometimes strident debate was overlaid with the state’s long history of denying that basic right to many of its residents, including African-Americans.

Democrats produced figures from the State Elections Commission which showed 178,000 registered voters, or 7 percent of the state’s 2.6 million voters, did not possess a state-issued photo identification.

They argued those voters, including the poor and the elderly, might be stymied in the short term by additional hurdles put in place requiring new proofs of identification. [...]

Legislators have worked out a compromise on a bill requiring South Carolina voters to show photo IDs before they cast a ballot.

The state Senate remained in recess Thursday while legislators typed up the specifics.

Republican Sen. Larry Martin said senators have agreed to 30 days of early voting, and a photo ID won’t be required for elections this year. [...]

Auto accessory expansion to add 50 Cherokee jobs

Suminoe Textile of America, a subsidiary of Japan-based Suminoe Textile Co., announced Thursday it plans to invest $6.5 million to expand its operations in Cherokee County and create 50 new jobs.

The company will open a new manufacturing facility in a large industrial building off Victory Trail Road, less than two miles from the company’s plant in the Meadow Creek Industrial Park. That plant will be converted into a needle punch carpet facility.

Cherokee County’s jobless rate in November was 16.5 percent, the 16th-highest rate in South Carolina, according to the state Employment Security Commission.

“We’re absolutely delighted at their expansion,” said Ben Clary, Cherokee County administrator. “They were the first Japanese operation that we had in this county when they landed here in 2003. I’ve had the pleasure of working with some super people associated with their operation.”

STA produces environmentally friendly seat coverings, flooring and throw mats for automotive manufacturers, including Honda Motor Co., Toyota Motor Corp. and Nissan Motor Co.

Its parent company’s profits have been hit hard by the global economic downturn. As a result, Suminoe’s executive leadership made the decision last year to restructure its automobile seat coverings business with a special focus on STA.

“We are excited about this expansion,” Satoru Kuninaka, president of STA, said in a statement. “Cherokee County has provided an excellent business environment for us, so we are pleased to continue growing our operations here. The new facility will allow us to add capacity and meet growing demand from our customers and clients.”

Clary applauded the efforts of county officials who have worked hard to bring in jobs to replace losses from the disintegrating commodities textile industry.

“We’ve fought hard to make this happen,” he said. “That’s not to say that we’re there now. We still have high unemployment, and jobs are at the front of our minds.”

The company said it expects to begin hiring for the new positions in late February and March.

Applications are available at the commission’s Gaffney Workforce Center at 133 Wilmac Road.

For more information, call 864-489-3112.

goupstate.com

Memo to Congress: South Carolina affirms its sovereignty under the 9th and 10th amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Ditto for the Second and 14th amendments.

And when it comes to the proposed federal health care reform, thanks, but no thanks.

That’s the message the state Senate delivered on Tuesday, bringing an end to a fight that began last February. The brawl ended with a 31-11 vote – with all of the votes in opposition coming from Democrats.

Sen. Glenn Reese, D-Boiling Springs, broke rank and voted for the measure.

The resolution does not carry the weight of law, but informs Congress of the state’s position.

Sen. Lee Bright, R-Roebuck, one of the original sponsors of the resolution when it included only the 10th amendment, said he was glad to be finished with the protracted battle.

“If at first you don’t secede, try again,” Bright said with a laugh.

Bright said he was pleased with the final product.

“I think all of our rights are under assault, but assault on the 9th and 10th amendments is the most egregious,” he said.

In addition to affirming South Carolina’s Second-, 9th- and 10th-amendment rights, the measure also targets federal health care legislation by saying state residents are not subject to any law that:

– Interferes with the right of a person to choose their health care provider.

– Restricts a person’s freedom to choose a private health care system or plan.

– Interferes with a person’s or an entity’s right to pay directly for medical servicesImposes a tax, penalty or fine for choosing a health care provider, obtaining or declining health care coverage or participating in any particular health care system or plan.

Sen. Nikki Setzler, D-Columbia, said the Senate spent far too much time debating a non-binding resolution when state residents wanted lawmakers to focus on the 12.3 percent unemployment rate and a deepening budget crisis.

Sen. Shane Martin, R-Spartanburg, agreed that the Senate spent too much time on the resolution. But he put the blame on Democrats.

“They wanted to hold things up to keep us from getting to things like voter ID,” Martin said. “Voter ID scared them last year, and it scares them again this year.”

Sen. Brad Hutto, who last week led a filibuster, wanted to expand the resolution to cover the entire Constitution.

“If we’re going to pass a resolution claiming certain rights, I don’t know why we wouldn’t claim all of our rights,” said Hutto, D-Orangeburg.

Hutto also attempted to add provisions censuring Gov. Mark Sanford, rejecting $205 million in Medicaid funds under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and rejecting Medicare coverage for the state’s senior citizens. Medicare, according to Hutto’s amendment, represents “an unlawful intrusion on the state’s right to pull the plug on grandma – and possibly grandpa – if so desired.”

The only amendment put to a vote was the Medicaid rejection, which senators tabled by a 44-0 vote.

Hutto said his amendments would have had as much impact as everything that made it into the resolution: None.

“Like anything else that’s in here, it’s not going to change a thing,” he said.

goupstate.com

Senators in Columbia should approve a bill this session that calls for a constitutional amendment that would preserve the secret ballot in South Carolina workplaces. The bill should be passed even though talk of the so-called “card check” bill has cooled in Washington, D.C., thanks to Congress’ single-minded focus on health-care reform.

Last spring, the S.C. House passed a bill that would require unionization votes in South Carolina to be conducted via secret ballot if S.C. voters approve a constitutional amendment. The amendment would protect South Carolina workers from an infringement of their privacy that would give unions too much power to influence the votes to create them. [...]