♪ music ♪ ♪ Gavin> Welcome to This Week in South Carolina.

I'm Gavin Jackson.

This week, the Senate and House returned to Columbia to begin the second session of the 125th session of the General Assembly.

Education, economic development and medical marijuana are some of the top issues that will be debated.

Joining me to give a preview of this year's debate is Seanna Adcox, editor of the South Carolina Daily Gazette and the Associated Press' James Pollard.

Seanna, James, thanks for joining us.

Welcome to you both.

Happy legislative session.

Seanna and James> Thank you.

Thank you.

Gavin> So before we start talking about what's going on, what we can expect to see out of Columbia going forward this session, Seanna, I want to ask you about your new news outlet, some news in the news world.

Tell us about the South Carolina Daily Gazette that you're the editor of.

Seanna> Well, tomorrow marks our eight week anniversary since we launched.

It's me.

And a team of well, I'm part of a team of four and we cover state government and we cover state government for free to all readers and also other news outlets.

ETV, included, you can use our copy for free.

>> Mm hmm.

Seanna> So our mission is to tell the public what's going on and in a way that they can access it for free.

Gavin> You have that team covering the Statehouse, too, with you up there?

Seanna> Absolutely.

Yes.

Gavin> Awesome!

Looking forward to having more folks running around the Statehouse in Columbia.

Seanna speaking of that, let's talk about the budget before we talk about any of these legislative issues.

We saw the governor release his budget last week talking about some of his top priorities.

It serves as a blueprint for lawmakers to use when it comes to crafting their budget, because obviously the House starts with that.

The Senate picks it up back and forth, back and forth.

But what did you see in the governor's budget, anything that jumped out at you?

Seanna> Well, I'm a big ...I cover education.

you know, that's one of the near and dear to my heart kind of things.

So, yes, the pay scale and his changes to the salary schedule jumped out at me.

Now, they follow the recommendations largely not completely of a teacher salary or a teacher study that came out last May.

But it would it would put 250 million into teacher salaries.

But it does... And it would raise the salary floor the absolute minimum a first year teacher could make from 42.5 to 45.

But that doesn't mean all teachers would get $2500.

Gavin> -Like they previously did.

Seanna> Right.

This does not guarantee a pay raise for all, although most would get it depending on what the district pays already.

But it would shrink the salary schedule in two ways and hopefully pay teachers more over their entire career.

Gavin> And that's something that the legislature has to deal with, too, when it comes pay raise, right?

It sounds like... Seanna> Oh, yes, that's part of the budget.

It's always handled in a proviso.

And they paid teachers the same way since 1977, since the Education Finance Act.

And this would be the first big major change in the salary schedule in almost 50 years.

Gavin> And they've been changing education funding too, here and there tinkering with it.

So you could say that there's maybe some appetite for this.

Seanna> Yeah, I mean, they've been increasing teacher pay.

If it does go to 45, that would actually mark a $10,000 increase over the last five years in the bottom basement level that they could get paid.

$10,000 over four years is substantial for five years.

But it actually obviously has not moved the mark in terms of breaking or stemming that teacher shortage.

Gavin> Mm hmm.

Seanna> So the idea is let's do things a little bit differently.

Gavin>...We can talk about those numbers in a minute, too.

But, James, I want to ask you about what you saw in the governor's budget.

This is your second year running around the statehouse with us.

I'm sure you're having a lot of fun with that.

But you heard the governor talk.

What stood out to you from his priority list?

James> Yeah, as Seanna said, it's an education heavy budget, again.

And one nugget that doesn't get a huge chunk of the pie, but it could have a big impact is actually a $3 million for a higher education committee study.

The governor wants them to look at whether the state's 33 public institutions can be consolidated in some ways.

They're looking at trends in population around fewer students going to college nowadays and also the birth rate declining.

James> They think there's some room for consolidation.

Gavin> Seanna, when we talk about consolidating, I mean, we're talking about school districts, but then you start talking about colleges like that's...

It's already hard enough to deal in our state with school districts.

There's some 80 school districts or so?

Seanna> 77, I think... Gavin> They've been trying to consolidate through incentives.

So, I'd imagine that this would be even more difficult to do.

Seanna> Right.

Go back to...Mark Sanford.

For years, he wanted to create what was called a board of regents like other states have.

And he talked about closing some of the two year campuses for USC.

And that went over like a ton of bricks.

It obviously never got any sort of traction.

But with the enrollment issues and we see this big surplus in scholarship money, McMaster is proposing a comprehensive study, which of course when they don't know what to do, they study.

So the thought is and they want some outside force to do it because no one in South Carolina is going to say, I want to close you or I want to merge you.

<Gavin> Mm hmm.

>> And perhaps when the study is done, some of our 33, two and four year campuses might merge.

Gavin> Mm hmm.

Seanna> Supposedly.

Gavin> Yeah.

When we also talk about the budget, The governor is also big on public safety, so there's some pay raises in there for them those folks, too, it seems like.

And then also, school safety has been a big push of his, more SROs, public safety training there.

So kind of his way of, I guess, walking a fine line when it comes to gun issues and concerns about that, but also safe schools.

Seanna> Right.

Well, and I think it was like 400 schools or 400 SROs or something like that when he, when he made this big push in 2018 when the mass shooting happened in Florida, And this, he says, would put an SRO in every school.

Gavin> Which has been a goal, just like trying to get teacher pay the starting pay to 50,000, which.

Seanna> By 2026.

Gavin> Seems like it's going to be on track.

Do you think?

Seanna> If he, if this continues.

Yeah.

Gavin> Seanna, let's stick with you because you guys have a big story in the South Carolina Daily Gazette about the governor asking for $500 million to fix bridges.

There's been a pretty good crisis going on when it comes to infrastructure in our state.

They're trying to mitigate that.

They raised the gas tax years ago, but still, there are a lot of bridges that are in difficult condition.

Gavin> So what's going on with that?

What's the reception that you've been seeing to that story?

Seanna> Well, about a third of our bridges, like 2700, are past what they call the what they were intended to live, their live by date.

Yeah.

Gavin> Which is not something you really.

Seanna> Right!

Gavin> Maybe for milk, but maybe not a bridge.

>>Right.

And there's something like 500 that are over 90 years old that are you know, that's kind of scary actually.

But so the issue I don't know that there's any push.

Well, most legislators won't have a push back in.... we need to fix our bridges.

Gavin> Sure.

>> The pushback will be where he's suggesting getting the money.

Because he's taking it from a surplus of sales taxes that's mounted over since 2020 from -it's a fund for property tax relief through Act 388 and opening up Act 388 from 2006.

Any debate on that is just going to be a hornet's nest, as Bruce Bannister would say.

Gavin> Mm hmm.

House Ways and Means Chairman, especially when we're talking about how much money is in this budget, too.

Right?

There's an extra, I think, $1.5 billion dollars split between recurring and one time dollars, talking about surplus money.

Seanna> Well, and as the chairman said, they could do it the way that the House planned to do it last year, which was put 200 million toward a five year, 1 billion dollar request by DOT.

It was put in the McMaster's recommendations.

It was put in the first House plan.

Senate took it out, and that's why it didn't get passed last year.

Gavin> The back and forth between the two chambers, James, we heard from Senate majority leader, Shane Massey recently saying that my hope is that we don't focus too much on social issues this session.

But is that going to be the case?

I mean, you were asking him questions about transgender related bills being filed.

And those bills could really drive a lot of agendas, especially in an election year for both the House and the Senate.

Gavin> What's your take?

James> Yeah, absolutely.

I think AP's count had 22 states that passed some form of bans on gender affirming care for minors, whether it's bans on surgical procedures or hormone therapies and on the House side, already this week, the first week of session, we see one such bill going forward.

And I know the House expects to have floor debate pretty quickly on that issue.

And today we heard leaders in the Senate say that they will welcome whatever the House sends them on that.

So it seems to be a priority for both chambers and something that leaders think they'll get through this session.

Gavin> Especially because we just got the high school transgender sports bill, was that last year, or the year before that?

I think it was- James> Relatively before that.

Gavin> So it's still a ball that's very much in play.

And like you say, nationally, it's happening across the nation as well.

James> Mm hmm.

Gavin> So Seanna, when we talk about social issues, we did see the biggest one last year was the six week abortion ban bill that did pass after years of debate in various forms.

We did see the state Supreme Court uphold that six week abortion ban last summer.

Gavin> So it is the law of the land.

But again, Senator Shane Massey, the majority leader in the Senate says, "they're not trying to focus on these social issues "and that they don't expect "to debate abortion again."

What do you think?

Having covered the statehouse for so long, can we?

Seanna> Every single year we take up abortion.

So I believe that the Senate does not intend to take it up.

I also would not be surprised if it's it'll come up in some fashion, if only in the budget debate.

That's kind of normal.

Somebody will have an amendment out there.

But I don't think I don't think there's going to be any...desire from leadership to go through hash out any more debate on that, especially since as Shane Massey made clear again and again and again over months, the Senate, there's not the votes in the Senate to go any further than they did.

Gavin> Mm hmm.

Yeah.

I mean, six weeks was a tough sell.

If we talk about personhood.

We talk about, you know, near-total abortion ban from conception... the votes have not changed.

And again, it's election year.

So assuming things do change.

Seanna> It will probably come back up next year, depending on what the elections show or, you know, who gets elected.

Gavin> Mm hmm.

>> But I really don't think it will this year.

Gavin> I know to ask you about this, but do you think that we're going to see the Senate become more conservative going forward, if you were to look into a crystal ball?

Seanna> Umm...

I think they probably have a good chance to pick up a seat or two.

Gavin> Because a lot of those folks that were voting for that abortion bill are now going to be targets of primaries.

Seanna> Well, and, you know, just because of the state itself and redistricting, there are some seats that have become more red.

Gavin> So the chamber is likely to become more red too.

A lot to watch this year.

But, James, when we're talking about social issues, a big discussion point at the South Carolina Press Association Media Workshop this week was about hate crimes.

It's been one that's been on the books for a while, on the books about I mean, on the calendar, I should say, because it has passed the House, it's a penalty enhancement bill.

Gavin> Again, passed the House before.

It's on the Senate counter's block there.

Any word?

Did you get any vibe from the lawmakers this week about how that might move forward?

If it might move forward?

James> It seems very unlikely to move forward in the Senate, which is where it's been stuck.

Majority Leader Shane Massey personally opposes it.

He made that very clear at the Press Association event.

And regardless of his own personal feelings, he insists that there's not enough votes to pass it.

While there might be enough votes, you know, more people in the Senate want to pass it than oppose it.

James> They don't have the votes to shut down some of the procedural tactics that opponents can use to kill a bill.

So it seems very unlikely.

Gavin> We had some healthy debate on that there, too.

But again, this is a bill that, you know, you basically have to almost kill somebody or kill somebody in order to get this penalty enhancement, so very limited, not that bill that some people fear that would infringe on First Amendment rights, or anything like that.

James> Yes.

I mean, after we saw the cross burning in Conway recently, there were calls from supporters to pass this bill.

But as you noted, this is a very conservative bill that likely wouldn't apply to that scenario anyway.

Seanna> And it's just an enhancement.

You can't -it applies after someone's convicted.

So you can't just charge someone with a hate crime.

Gavin> But you would think we heard them talking if you want to be tough on crime, just add one more layer of a penalty.

But apparently it doesn't work.

But it does work for bond reform.

(laughs) But, James, education, as always, folks, we were just talking about that in the budget.

We left last session talking about a controversial bill that passed both chambers that's in conference committee with House and Senate members dealing with critical race theory.

CRT being prohibited in K through 12 schools.

Again, that's not taught in schools right now, but this would make sure that's the case.

What's the deal with this bill?

Do you see this going forward?

What's your take?

James> Yeah, so like a lot of these issues in the South Carolina legislature, this is a House-Senate battle, not a Republican- Democrat battle.

So right now, senators...

Senators passed a bill that doesn't include two major House provisions, one that would allow parents anywhere to challenge educational materials in a school district, whether or not they live in that district.

And another provision that would require that teachers stick to the lesson plans they post publicly online several days before they teach it, regardless of whether news events change.

They would have to stick with that.

Republicans in the Senate don't want to see that happen.

They're meeting the first week of the session with their House colleagues to see if they can find a way forward.

I think both sides want to.

They want to make this bill happen, but it's just a matter of what's in the final product.

Seanna> And I will add, what most people don't realize is that the concepts that get a lot of attention in terms of what this bill bans are already banned in state law.

Gavin> Mm hmm.

Seanna> So what this, what the bill actually does is set up a complaint process and that law is actually why -how the Freedom Caucus sued Lexington County and Charleston County.

But it would actually remove, the bill itself, would remove one of those banned concepts from what is already banned in state law.

James> And kind of a lesser discussed aspect of the bill is it also requires that materials be age appropriate and also bans classroom trainings, mandatory trainings on gender and sexuality.

Gavin> It's a pretty broad swath of a lot of issues that we hear play out across the country, different laws, legislatures Seanna, I want to ask you about a big bill that passed last year, which was education scholarship accounts we're talking about school choice.

This is something you've been watching for a while and finally got across the finish line last year.

Seanna> That's another thing.

Sanford started.

(laughing) Gavin> You're going back.

Again, grants for, what, $6,000 in vouchers for qualifying families?

Seanna> Up to 5000.

Gavin> Okay.

And then so this is in the courts right now, but where do we see this going?

Do we see more money going towards this cause, too?

Seanna> Well, while it passed last year, they didn't put any money toward it other than the ability to set it up and contract for the people who would set the online system.

So the $30 million, that's in McMaster's budget is actually just would pay for what... the sign ups start in a week or two?

And the sign ups would actually the signing period is through the court.

The court hearing is in March and the sign ups end the week later.

And so that $30 million pays for the folks who have already signed up before the court even hears the case.

Gavin> Okay.

So really getting close to the line there.

Seanna> Yeah.

Yeah.

I mean, it's -the one thing the lawsuit did not do is stop the process until the decision came out, which is -that's why we had this odd scenario where they're starting it up, they're getting parents to enroll.

And then we're going to have the court case on.

Can we do this?

Gavin> Yeah.

Right.

Sounds very South Carolina to me.

(laughs) But still, and that's going to grow over the years too.

This is like the pilot then it just continues to add more.

Seanna> Yeah, so this year it's $6,000 or up to $5000 and incrementally increases not only in the number of... children that can participate, but also in the eligibility of income.

So right now, a child would have to qualify for Medicaid by the time this is fully phased in, the parents can make up to 400% of the poverty level.

So, it's you can't say it's for poor kids, certainly not by the time this thing is fully phased in.

Gavin> Gotcha.

And when we talk about -we were talking about teacher pay a moment ago and how big of an issue that is in terms of kind of keeping teachers on the rolls in South Carolina, according to the Center for Educator Recruitment, Retention and Advancement.

Their latest report was that there were about 1600 unfilled K through 12 educator jobs in the state, the start of the 2023-2024 school year, which is a 9% increase from the year before.

Gavin> Like we talked about, we boosted teacher pay across the board $2500 adding more money for per pupil funding.

Is that going to be enough if we keep adding more from what you're hearing from educators, from what you hearing from advocates, it's not just money?

Seanna> Yeah, I mean, they need, I mean, obviously everyone wants to make more money no matter what you already make.

Right?

But it -you need to support the teachers.

...part of the things they ask for is they want breaks.

They want -they don't feel supported by their administration.

They're asked to do things whether it's bus duty.

Seanna> They have to do all these other things that they don't get compensated for.

They and I don't know how you legislate respect for teachers, but, you know, that's part of the issue too.

But they just... Is money going to do it?

No.

Will it help?

Yes.

But that's why the -McMaster's or actually it's the teacher recommendations saying that we need to do this pay differently.

Gavin> So they have to take those recommendations up before anything happens, I guess.

Seanna> Yeah.

And I mean, you know, whether whether the legislature follows the recommendations that McMaster put out, that follows the recommendations of the teachers.

You know, who knows?

Gavin> If you want to fix education, here's a litany of recommendations to help at least mitigate some of these problems.

Seanna> Right.

Gavin> James, when we talk about some of the social issues, when we're talking about guns, it's always a big topic in South Carolina, H3594, It's a constitutional carry bill.

It's passed the House.

It's over in the Senate, too.

And they voted, I believe in the Senate, too.

But what's the likelihood of this bill moving forward?

It seems like there's a lot tied up with this bill at this moment.

James> Yeah.

So, again, Republican leaders in the Senate say they don't have the votes to pass a bill that removes the background check, regular background checks and required training like the House bill does.

What they'd like to do is House leaders with their constitutional carry bill, also added a felon and possession penalty enhancement that the governor has been pushing for a lot.

And Senator Shane Massey would really like to just pass that as a standalone.

But right now they've kind of been conjoined together to ease some of the opposition from law enforcement groups who want a felon in possession but aren't super comfortable with constitutional carry.

So again, it's another one of those issues that the House and the Senate are going to have to get together.

And if Senate says they don't have the votes, we'll have to see.

Gavin> And Seanna, that's, again, building off of a previous bill that got passed.

that allowed open carry with training.

So this is just full blown.

Just if you have a gun, go ahead and carry it essentially.

Seanna> You can... Gavin> If you can legally purchase it.

Right?

Seanna> Right.

If you can legally purchase it and you're, you know, 21 and older then you, you can already open or conceal carry.

The difference is this would mean you would not have to get that SLED permit.

Gavin> Okay.

Yeah.

Again, that's kind of poised to move.

But again, very a lot of factors at play.

But it is election year too.

We have a lot of folks helping and that's a big red meat issue.

Seanna> And I'm sure that the Republicans who have voted against so-called constitutional carry are getting a lot of pushback right now.

And I'm sure Shane Massey's one of them.

Gavin> Seanna, we have about 5 minutes left.

And I want ask you about medical marijuana because it's a topic we've been talking about for years.

Beaufort Republican Senator Tom Davis has had that bill going before the Senate.

It's even gotten out of the Senate before, but it's on the calendar in the Senate right now.

He sounds pretty optimistic about it.

Gavin> Tell us a little bit about that bill, and the likelihood of it making it to the House and what its fate could be over in the House.

Seanna> Well, as we saw it go to the House a couple of years ago and then get tossed out on a technicality, which really made a lot of senators mad, even if those who opposed it did not like the way that the House treated their bill.

So, it I think it will move out of the Senate.

umm... What happens in the House is anybody's guess.

(laughing) Gavin> Love a little back and forth there, James, not the sexiest topic, but we want to talk about judicial reform, really talking about how judges are elected in the state.

Again, the legislature does that.

We don't have popular elections for judges in the state, for better or for worse.

But this really kind of came up for a few reasons that's gotten a lot of attention.

Gavin> What's the state status of that and where do we see some of that going?

James> Yes, not the sexiest topic, but certainly one that the attorney general and a lot of different lawmakers have made a big deal in the off season.

So to recap the way South Carolina elects judges, there is a ten person Judicial Merit Selection Commission.

Judicial candidates appear before them.

This commission does open hearings, questionnaires on their temperament, their public standing.

James> They call up all their friends and colleagues and relatives and ask them questions about them.

So they do the research and they put forward three candidates, up to three candidates for each position, and then the entire legislature gets together and votes on them.

Right now, there is also there are all sorts of different proposals.

Some people want to put some people want to put a three person cap or remove the three person cap.

Others want to involve the governor in some way, whether it's appointing the members of the JMSC, whether it's appointing candidates to go before the JMSC, they say the executive branch should be more involved and then others want to remove entirely legislators who are also lawyers, sometimes derogatorily called, derogatorily called lawyer legislators.

They want to remove them from the process altogether because they say that they then get undue influence in the courts when they're practicing outside of session.

Gavin> So, Seanna, when we talk about judicial reform, you've been around, you have a crystal ball laying around somewhere.

What do you think about this going forward?

This all kind of spawned out of the Supreme Court's decision over the six week ban last January that got everyone fired up.

Right?

Seanna> Do I think judicial reform is going to happen this year?

(laughing) No.

Gavin> I think it's safe to say no.

We have like a couple of weeks left, but this ball, I mean, where do you see this going, essentially?

Seanna> I think they'll tweak, make some tweaks.

The three person cap could come off.

They could say.

... at least limit the number of legislative lawyers on the JMSC.

But there's going to be no whole scale, any massive changes.

Gavin> And it's a lot of moving parts, too.

James> Yeah.

Seanna> And it's in shape...

Sorry, Shane Massey said "Everyone thinks there should be changes.

"But ask them what?

And they go...ummm."

So it's too many moving parts in an I think in an election year for them to really come to any sort of consensus.

James> And like you've noted, it is an election year and that can move the ball.

And I think there's been some groups that are trying to make this a sexier issue, trying to corral public opinion.

And it's just a question of if this is a topic that excites the public as much as proponents of changes want it to.

Gavin> 30 seconds, Any predictions anyone wants to give really quick?

Seanna?

Seanna> Um.

Gavin> Throwing you on the spot here, James.

(laughs) Seanna> Well, going back to medical marijuana, I'll make the prediction that we're going to be the last state.

(all laugh) Gavin> If nothing else passes here, it will be the last state.

James> Okay, I'll just say my editor told me before I appeared only talk about what you know.

Gavin> There you go.

James> I can not.

I am not in the business of making predictions.

So, you know, I need my paycheck at the end of the day.

So, my hands are tied... Gavin> Seanna, can respect that, having worked for the AP.

But now she's her own boss, so she can say what she wants.

James> Exactly.

Gavin> That's Seanna Adcox with the South Carolina Daily Gazette and James Pollard with the AP.

Thanks, guys.

Thanks to both Seanna and James.

And as you might have noticed, we're on a different set than usual.

That's because there's a brand new set coming to This Week in South Carolina.

I'll be hitting the campaign trail for the next two weeks, bringing you the latest news from the presidential campaign in Iowa and in New Hampshire.

Gavin> When I return, we'll be on that brand new set and look forward to continuing our conversations with you all.

For South Carolina ETV, I'm Gavin Jackson.

Be well, South Carolina.

♪ closing music ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪