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

I'm Gavin Jackson.

Last week, the state Supreme Court overturned the state's six week abortion ban law.

We speak with Jeffrey Collins of the Associated Press about this decision and the political fallout at the Statehouse, but first Governor Henry McMaster and Lieutenant Governor Pamela Evette, along with the state's constitutional officers were sworn into office at the 98th inaugural ceremony this past Wednesday, on the south side of the statehouse.

The day began with a prayer service and ended with an inaugural gala.

Here's some highlights from that historic day.

It was a historic Inauguration Day on January 11 2023, with Governor Henry McMaster being sworn into his second full term in office, along with his running mate Pamela Evette, who in 2019, became the first female Republican lieutenant governor in South Carolina.

The day began with a traditional prayer service.

However, since McMaster is the first governor from Columbia in more than a century, the service was held at his home church First Presbyterian, instead of Trinity Episcopal Cathedral.

There several dignitaries joined the McMaster family for the service, where bagpipes played, religious leaders bestowed blessings and a choir sang.

First Presbyterian pastor Derek Thomas delivered a message of faith and leadership.

<Derek Thomas> We are blessed here in the state of South Carolina to have a governor who believes in God, who believes in the doctrine of providence, that God is in charge.

That helps you go to sleep at night.

However difficult, the road ahead, whatever needs to be done, whatever needs to be changed, whatever the opposition may be, there is a greater power and a greater authority and it's God.

Is there evil in government?

Absolutely.

But there is good there too.

<Gavin> The day progressed onward to the inauguration ceremony itself where all current living governors gathered along with state lawmakers, foreign dignitaries and others.

Governor Dick Riley was present as well as Governors David Beasley, the head of the World Food Program, whose five year tenure ends in April, Jim Hodges, who was elected in 1998, and was the last Democrat elected governor, two term Governor Mark Sanford and his former wife Jenny and Nikki Haley, who left midway through her second term to become a US Ambassador to the United Nations, which propelled then Lieutenant Governor McMaster to governor in January 2017.

Governor McMaster won his first term in 2018 After defeating several opponents in a primary and John Warren in a runoff thanks in part to support for President Donald Trump.

McMaster went on to defeat Democrat James Smith in the election that year.

McMaster faced no primary opposition in 2022 and thanks to a growing economy and a growing state, as well as a collaborative approach to governing, he easily defeated Democrat Joe Cunningham by a 17 point margin in November.

Before taking his oath, Lieutenant Governor Pamela Evette, administered the oath of office to the constitutional officers, all Republicans who were reelected last year Secretary of State Mark Hammond, Treasurer Curtis Loftis, Attorney General Alan Wilson, Comptroller General Richard Eckstrom, newly elected Superintendent of Education Ellen Weaver, and Commissioner of Agriculture, Hugh Weathers.

<McMaster>...the duties thereof <Justice John Kittredge> I'll preserve protect and defend.

<McMaster> I will preserve... <Gavin> Governor McMaster was sworn in for his third and final time as the 117th Governor, but this time by State Supreme Court Justice John Kittredge as Chief Justice Don Beatty did not attend the ceremony.

Two F-16 Fighting Falcons from nearby McEntire Joint National Guard Base, flew over the statehouse in salute of the governor.

(jet sounds) <McMaster> This also includes stronger laws to keep illegal guns out of the hands of criminals and juveniles.

We must also ensure that the public has confidence in whom and how we elect all of our judges, how we select our judges, by making the processes more transparent and accountable, so that every South Carolinian, born and unborn may enjoy life, liberty and happiness.

(applause) We must do whatever it takes to see that every child, to see that every child in our state has the opportunity to receive an excellent education.

Albert Einstein said, "a problem can never "be solved by thinking on the same level that produced it."

He was right.

We must think big and bold and we will.

Standing here four years ago I said being perceived as weak in education is not good.

But being perceived as not committed to fixing it, is disastrous.

Six years ago the minimum starting salary for a teacher in South Carolina was $30,113.

Today, it is 40,000.

My goal is by 2026 is that we have a minimum starting salary of at least, at least $50,000.

(applause) We must continue investing in our people to ensure that they are prepared to reap the benefits of our future prosperity.

<Gavin> The day's events concluded with a black tie gala at the Columbia Metropolitan Convention Center, where donors and dignitaries and bow ties and ball gowns lauded the governor and first lady ahead of a night of dancing and fellowship, <McMaster> Y'all, we live in the best place in the whole world.

You've heard it all today.

It's getting better and better.

So let's have a good time tonight.

And then we getting back to work because we're going to the top, to the top.

Thank you.

<Gavin> For all of our coverage from the 98th inaugural visit SCETV.org.

Last week, the state Supreme Court ruled that the state's six week abortion ban law was unconstitutional.

Jeffrey Collins with the Associated Press joins us now to discuss the fallout from that decision.

Jeffrey, welcome back.

<Jeffrey> Hello, Gavin.

Good to see you.

Again.

<Gavin> You are a back to back repeat customer.

We appreciate you being here.

Another week to talk about some big news that happened.

Obviously we spoke last Thursday morning, right before the Supreme Court dropped this bombshell ruling this three to two ruling striking down the state's six week abortion law, saying it violates article one section 10 of our state's constitution, which creates a right to privacy.

Now that's a right to privacy, unlike what we saw, with the Roe decision with the Casey decision, which was more of a patchwork of amendments creating that right to privacy for abortion at the federal level, which was overturned last June.

But here in South Carolina, we're one of 10 states with a direct right to privacy in our constitution.

So Jeffrey talk to us about why this decision was so shocking, and some of the fallout we've been seeing.

<Jeffrey> Well, first off, it's simply the timing.

I mean, you know, it came the Thursday before the session began, you know, on Tuesday, and, you know, there were you know, in fact the House Republican Committee Chairman, were all meeting to discuss well what bills are we going to start out with.

So, all of a sudden they got that dropped in their lap, and this was, that they, they're going to have to deal with it some point, this session.

There's no way around it.

You know, newsrooms across the state, people were writing their legislative previews, and suddenly abortion shows up, which we were going to be maybe a couple of graphs at the bottom of the story.

Now, it's a paragraph at the top.

I mean, the timing of it was very key on that.

And, but the contents in and of itself are fairly surprising.

I mean, I think there were plenty of people sounding warnings after the arguments that they're made that this that, you know, the Supreme Court just by the nature that they, you know, paused the law in August that they were looking at that right to privacy, you know, perhaps making the abortion law in South Carolina illegal, but I mean, I don't think anybody, I won't see anybody, but I think it was a surprise that was fully turned over, and the surprise was, in a way, the myriad.

There's five different opinions on this thing.

It's a three-two ruling, the three that ruled to overturn the law, disagreed in some ways.

I mean, you know, there are some justice view, it tends to lean out from a different way from the other two, and the two dissents tend to look at it in a different way.

So, it was a 140 Page opinion, five different opinions from some very smart scholars that everybody's having to digest, and still, at this point, about a week out, we still don't really have a full grasp, I think on exactly what's going to happen next.

<Gavin> Yeah, we're living in suspense right now after this first week of the statehouse, and we did see that three to two ruling.

It was Justice Kaye Hearn, who wrote the majority opinion, basically the lead opinion there with also supporting opinions by Chief Justice Don Beatty, and then of course, like you mentioned, Justice John Cannon Few who was a swing vote in this one where as Justice George James and Justice Kittredge's vote dissented, but again, like you said, Jeffrey, everyone had their own separate opinions here, their own separate writings.

That's what made this a pain so large, like you're saying 150 pages, it's very rare to see them write their own rulings, in a sense, their own opinions when it comes to any kind of decision.

So do you think that was maybe their way of saying, we want to be clear about where each one of us stands?

We don't want to come across as legislating from the bench, which is what some people have been interpreting this decision as?

<Jeffrey> Yeah, I think it has and I think it also highlights exactly how divisive this issue was in the Supreme Court chambers.

I mean, you know, typically, you get maybe two maybe three different opinions on an issue at the most because I mean, they really want, they want to speak as one voice.

They're one court.

They kind of, they would prefer to speak as one voice if possible.

And even if you read through the footnotes and everything, I mean, they were talking back and forth with each other.

I mean, you know, they were, they were picking apart each other's arguments in their own opinions.

I mean, which is a fairly rare event too.

And I mean, you know, it's like I said they came at it from different directions.

I mean, Justice Few mentions in there that perhaps instead if the legislature had completely outlawed abortion, or maybe passed a personhood bill which gives, you know, an embryo, all the rights of a living, breathing human being from the moment of conception, maybe the thing comes out differently, because they could look at it, you know, there's not a right to privacy in a rape case.

So if you make it illegal to kill an embryo, then maybe you've eliminated that privacy argument altogether, and he was one of the three.

I mean, there's, that's the thing is, there's a lot to kind of digest in all this and a lot to deal with, and that's part of the reason it's going to kind of hangover this session is because everybody's going to have to figure out what it means.

I mean, our arguments in the summer, in the fall over the special session, were very narrow.

It was like, do you keep the heartbeat bill, do you add exceptions?

What do you do?

So like, there's just two poles, it's kind of like you add more exceptions, or you make it a - you know, or you know, completely ban abortion.

The whole spectrum of abortion is open now.

I mean, right now, in South Carolina, it's, you know, roughly available up to 20 weeks, according to the law, and, you know, I don't think any Republican wants 20 weeks, but where do you fall?

Do you fall at 6?

Do you fall at 12 weeks?

I mean, there's just gonna be a lot to debate and a lot to sort through over the next, three months or so.

<Gavin> That's essentially what the court tossed back to the lawmakers.

You know, they didn't want to rule on 6, 7, 20, whatever.

They said, we can't.

This is an abortion.

You essentially have the right to privacy.

So we're not going to delineate what that looks like in the state.

That's your job over across the street at the Statehouse.

<Jeffrey> Well, and, you know, a couple of things that popped out of the majority opinions.

Kaye Hearn, Justice Kaye Hearn, her opinion, mentions that, you know, six weeks just isn't enough time for a woman to realize she's pregnant and to make a decision.

I mean, that's been that was talked about quite a bit during the 2019 debate that passed the law.

And last year that I mean, you know, just biologically in it's just, it's very hard.

I mean, you know, just the way that, bodies operate to know, someone's pregnant that early on.

So, you know, Justice Hearn suggested maybe there's a right to maybe - there's a point where the right to privacy and abortion meet, maybe a little further along.

Although she doesn't specify that.

That's up to the legislature, in her opinion, Justice Few, you know, again, in his opinion, he basically told lawmakers that the problem - one of the bigger problems is the abortion law was a Frankenstein kind of thing.

I mean, they kept building upon it, you know, from what was passed in the 70s.

After Roe vs. Wade, they just kind of kept adding pieces to it to the point where there it's just there's parts that disagree with each other, and there's parts that that don't make sense, and it's not even the what the crime of giving, performing illegal abortion really isn't very well defined at all in it.

And, you know, that's, and you know, too the Senate.

That's one thing the Senate wanted to do.

The Senate could not pass an abortion ban in the special session, but senators at least urged the house to accept their bill that did kind of - that kind of cleaned up the language in the abortion bill that they hoped would put off the Supreme Court.

The House refused even do that, and here we are.

<Gavin> Yeah, we'll definitely get into the ramifications, playing out in the statehouse in a moment, Jeffrey.

I just want to keep drilling down a little bit more on this opinion.

Again, we're talking about that constitutional right in our state's constitution, we're one of 10 states, like I said, that has a right to privacy written into our Constitution that was added in 1971.

And I can just go ahead and read it for folks because it was driven by worries about advances in technology and electronic devices at a time, but the section reads the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and unreasonable invasions of privacy shall not be violated and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched the person or thing to be seized and the information to be obtained.

Now, I didn't read anything specifically in there, like they keep talking about, you know, when it comes to electronic information dissemination like, but we did hear from Justice George James saying his dissent, that we must consider the intent of the framers.

So we're kind of going to go to this originalism versus textualism versus living document type interpretations here, and about the voters who passed the constitutional amendment.

So part of his dissent he reads, he writes that heightened Fourth Amendment protections, especially protection from law enforcement searches and seizures of communications and information through the improper use of electronic devices.

That's how he interprets what the intent was at the time.

So we're really again getting into this back and forth over originalism, textualism and folks thinking that the bench is legislating there, and again, they all wrote their own separate opinions there.

So, a lot to shake out too, especially when we start looking at how some lawmakers want to start evaluating future judges for the court.

<Jeffrey> Yeah.

You know, the part of the argument is, you know, this amendment was suggested by the West commission back in the late 1960s.

And they were put together to kind of figure out ways to clean up South Carolina's 1895 constitution, the one that was written during segregation, the one that's quite frankly, a very racist document.

I mean, so there.

And so that privacy amendment, the people that don't like this decision, argued that, you know, their point was electronic communications.

They didn't want the government to wiretap.

You know, Justice Hearn, on the other hand, wrote a very personal, you know, the only woman on the Supreme Court wrote a very personal, you know, point that, back when this commission, this commission had no women in the 1960s.

At the point they were formed, women couldn't serve on a jury.

So, you know, she's like, why are we interpreting this thing done in the 1960s, at a time when women didn't have the rights that they have today, even close when they were very much second class citizens in this state and to the point of judicial elections?

This becomes a very interesting issue.

I mean, again to talk about Justice Hearn, she's 72 years old, South Carolina requires judges to retire at age 72.

So this is it.

She's, you know, she's got just a few months left in her term.

There will be an election, I believe, on February 1 to replace her.

South Carolina's law makers choose judges, the hundred and what 60 lawmakers pick judges.

And so what they've done is there's a screening commission that discerns if these people are qualified for the job, they've determined three candidates are qualified.

So there's three candidates right now to replace Justice Hearn.

Right now we're at the point where they're talking to lawmakers informally is what's being done.

So, you know, it's funny, at the state house, there's a garage.

Everybody parks in the garage, and you have to walk up a ramp to get to the escalator?

Well, there's certain rules about when judges, judicial candidates can talk to lawmakers.

So one of the things they do is they stand at the bottom of that ramp, and they talk to lawmakers as they go up the ramp to go to session.

Well, these ramp conversations have become a lot more interesting.

I mean, you know, I think every almost every leader in the House and Senate have said that they expect there to be one on one conversations about judicial philosophy.

You know, the judicial canon doesn't mean they can't ask specifically, Hey, how are you going to rule on abortion?

But you can ask them?

You know, what do you think?

Do you strictly interpret the words of the Constitution?

Do you think - can you interpret them and what's your judicial philosophy?

How do you look at this?

And so I think there's going to be some long, hard discussions on how we screen judges.

I think maybe that you're going to see some people urge not just this qualification screening, but also maybe there'll be some questions about judicial philosophy asked.

And I think also the way lawmakers approach selecting judges will change.

I mean, South Carolina has a long tradition of geography based decision making.

I mean, you know, we try to like, even out our boards, so they have somebody from each of the 16 judicial circuits or the seven congressional districts, so they're nice and even geographically.

And there was an informal system on the Supreme Court to make sure that, you know, you didn't have four judges from Charleston and one from Greenville.

You know, you have one from Greenville, one from Columbia.

You split them up around the state.

One from the Pee Dee.

I think they're going to that geographic kind of informal system.

I don't think you're going to see that happen much anymore.

<Gavin> Yeah, and especially, you know, you're talking about changing how we vet these judges, of course, they like you're mentioned, they go through a vetting process, judicial merit selection commission, committee, and then they also then start soliciting lawmakers for their votes and we're gonna see that vote coming down in February, like you said, but even the governor in his inaugural address this past week, it's a 20 min long address, but he managed to mention that we must also ensure that the public has confidence in whom and how all our judges are selected, by making the process more transparent and accountable, so that every South Carolinian born and unborn may enjoy life, liberty and happiness.

And that, you know, you mesh that.

You put that in context with what he said after that three to two Supreme Court ruling that the people have spoken through their elected representatives multiple times on this issue, I look forward to work with the General Assembly to correct this error.

He says with this opinion, the court has clearly exceeded its authority.

So, a lot of talk in two very important times for the governor there, and I'm sure we'll hear more of it in his State of state address, where he'll be in front of lawmakers directly talking about this, but a lot of folks also echoing what the governor has been saying, at least for Republicans when it comes to reforming this process.

<Jeffrey> Well, and, you know, the Republican leaders in the House and Senate this week after the opinion came out, were very adamant that they don't want to change how South Carolina chooses judges.

You know, the legislature picks the judges, unlike most states, where they're popularly elected, you know, he goes before like the governor's race, he goes before the people.

I mean, everybody votes.

The leadership doesn't seem to like that at all.

You know, they said that creates a mess where, you know, judges are having to ask for campaign contributions, and they're making decisions on popular will instead of by the law.

But those are the leadership.

I mean, I suspect, you know, the folks that, you know, the regular citizens and the conservative folks and the folks that belong to pro life groups and things like that are going to be up in arms about this.

I mean, I wouldn't be surprised if there is some kind of grassroots push to have popularly elected judges in South Carolina now.

That's going to require a lot of work a constitutional amendment, I believe, and some things like that, that will, there's a very high bar for it.

But I mean, there may be,...

I wouldn't be surprised if that's a discussion that kind of blows up a little bit, towards the latter stage of this session is, well, shouldn't we just elect judges - popular, I mean?

<Gavin> Yeah, that's something you know, the lawmakers would have to give up that power, and I don't know when was the last time we saw lawmakers willingly give up power like that.

So that might be interesting.

<Jeffrey> It doesn't happen often...

Think about how hard somebody like Carol Campbell had to fight just to get, you know, some power for the governor in this legislative state.

So yeah, that will be a - if it comes to that it will be a pretty bitter fight.

<Gavin> Yes.

So again, Jeffrey, like we've been talking about just the reaction to that Supreme Court decision, looking at what could possibly be happening in this legislative session now that this has just been dropped into lawmakers laps, still waiting to get some clarity from leaders in both the House and the Senate on their next steps forward.

But I want to kind of keep with the governor here.

In terms of what we heard in his inaugural address on Wednesday, It was a short address, like I said, and we're going to expect a longer address from the state of state later this month, but what stood out to you.

There are some similar themes there from the governor, but anything new besides what we just mentioned about his statement there on judicial transparency?

<Jeffrey> I think, you know, if you had listened to his campaign, and you looked at his executive budget, you wouldn't have been all that surprised.

I think, you know, the governor chose to be a bit soaring in his address, which I, you know, the event befits that, I mean, you know, he talked about, you know, if South...talks about South Carolina, basically being the best place to be outside of heaven.

I mean, you know, and which is a very Henry McMaster way of putting it, you know, he starts out with in reference to Darlington, which seems to be one of the governor's - that favorite places on earth is the racetrack at Darlington.

I mean, it was a, I think it was just kind of Henry McMaster, setting a marker about what I want and what I expect out of South Carolina, and I think it was sort of his nod and way of talking to us, because he hadn't done it really up to this point about where his places in history, I mean, you know, if he serves out this four year term, he's the longest serving elected governor ever in the state of South Carolina, and, you know, for a guy that's always wanted to be governor, that's a fairly significant place to pop up in history, you know.

He'll be Walter Edgar's books and everything.

<Gavin> Yeah, once he gets midway through, he'll probably be the longest serving, right!

That's what it's gonna be because it got there in 2017.

<Jeffrey> Yeah, January of 25.

I think on maybe the 20th.

I don't remember exact day he was inaugurated, but yeah, about midway through January in 25.

<Gavin> So yeah, that little bit of history there.

It was a beautiful ceremony, a lot of dignitaries out there too, and got a 20 minute long speech, which was very soaring, but Jeffery.

We have about three minutes left, I want to talk to you about what we've just been hearing.

We spoke last week with Maayan Schecter at the State just about legislative priorities for this session.

Since then, we've had several interviews, get press gaggles press conferences with some of the top leadership.

Anything that's changed since we last spoke and in terms of what you're seeing advancing forward, in this first week of session.

<Jeffrey> I think there was some, you know, we're listening to Speaker Murrell Smith at the House, it was interesting to see, you know, that one of his chief priorities that we hadn't heard a lot about up to this point is not just fentanyl.

You know, it was strengthening South Carolina's laws, you know, against fentanyl and creating a crime of homicide by fentanyl or drugs that would give people up to 30 years if they provided drugs that killed somebody, but as a whole public safety agenda, I mean, you know, they want to talk about eliminating what they call catch and release.

In other words, people that are arrested, they get very low bails, even if they were out on bail for a different crime, because, you know, the judicial system kind of wanted to keep jails empty during COVID-19.

So I think that there's going to be a huge reform of that system and some other public safety kind of bills that come up.

One thing that - a couple of things that were mentioned on the Senate side that we just kind of found out is they will have a floor debate next week on education savings accounts, or vouchers, depending how you want to call it which is, basically you get money, parents and guardians get money that they can send their kids to a private school or through a private program as part of the taxpayer money.

So, that idea got all the way to a conference committee and failed last year.

So the Senate wants to get it out as soon as possible, and the House leadership is promised to take it up, as soon as you know, fairly quickly after it passes the Senate.

Certificate of need is another thing Shane Massey mentioned, which is a health care issue that you'll hear a lot about, but we can wait a couple of weeks before we dive into that one.

<Gavin> Yeah, It's a little bit of a complex one, not the sexiest topic but one that impacts all South Carolinians.

Jeffrey really quick.

Also we hear from Murrell Smith talk about the Second Amendment and constitutional carry.

It kind of jumped out, but I'm wondering if that's a little bit of red meat for that, that Freedom Caucus that is, really been driving a lot of the conversation, small minority, but still very loud voices.

<Jeffrey> Yes, the discussion is basically would allow people to be able to carry guns openly without any training or any like permits or anything, as long as you can legally own a gun, you could carry it out in public without it being a holster or hidden or anything.

And I think that is that does sound like something - that's something that's been pushed very hard by more conservative members of the House.

And I mean, there's been a little bit of a reluctance.

I mean, law enforcement officials, especially like State Law Enforcement Division Chief, Mark Keel don't want that.

They feel like it would create a place where it would be very hard for his officers or other police officers to determine who's legally carrying and trying to rescue in a situation and who might be causing problems.

And I mean, it's a can of worms.

But there - that's been an issue that's been pushed hard now that they got the ability for people to constantly, you know, to be able to carry if they're a concealed weapons permit holder openly.

But this would be one more step a little further, and I wouldn't be surprised if there's a pretty healthy debate on that in the next couple of months.

<Gavin> You know, it'd be hard to know who the good guys are, and who the bad guys are, but Jeffrey Collins, you're a good guy.

That's all I had you back on the show.

Jeffrey Collins with the AP, a Statehouse reporter.

Thank you so much, Jeffrey, <Jeffrey> Thank you.

I'm scared to see what curve ball gets thrown to bring me back next week, Gavin.

(Gavin laughs) <Gavin> To stay up to date with the latest news throughout the week, check out the South Carolina Lede.

It's a podcast that I host on Tuesdays and Saturdays that you can find on South Carolina Public Radio.org or wherever you find podcasts For South Carolina ETV, I'm Gavin Jackson, be well, South Carolina.

♪