Sanford’s Showdown

Gov. Mark Sanford, my choice for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012 (see here and here) is in the news again, this time for a fascinating battle over the separation of powers. South Carolina received roughly $700 million in federal stimulus money intended to help the state’s schools, but Gov. Sanford would only accept the cash if he could use it to pay down the state’s debt, including bonds and looming retirement system liabilities. It would be fiscally irresponsible, he argued, to simply spend the stimulus funds on new projects and obligations when the state first needed to address its burgeoning debt.

Unfortunately for Gov. Sanford, the state legislature had other plans. The legislature passed a budget which requires Sanford to accept the money within five days and use it for their outlined purposes, which do not include debt repayment. The Governor vetoed the budget but with a super-majority the legislature overrode it and then sued to require Gov. Sanford to use the money as they wished. Of course, Gov. Sanford responded in kind with a suit of his own.

Because the legislature overrode Gov. Sanford’s veto, this would seem to be a state issue and a moot point. But this case is a bit more nuanced. The legislature isn’t merely overriding a veto, but is essentially dictating to the governor how he must use federal funds. That makes it a federal issue, and if the federal statute gives authority of its use to governors, the legislature may be out of luck. Interestingly, the White House has previously endorsed Gov. Sanford’s position, so the showdown could be very interesting on both a legal and a political level.

A looming cloud over the entire process is timing. The U.S. Department of Education’s deadline requires that states must apply for the money by July 1.