This week in SC politics: Lawmakers pave way to fund religious schools with public money

The Republican-controlled South Carolina Legislature moved one step closer to changing the state constitution to fund religious and private schools directly last week. Opponents voiced concern about how this would affect the public school system, and one Democrat introduced a move to repeal the Heritage Act provision during the debate.

The same day, the fledgling hate crimes bill saw bipartisan support and was moved out of committee to be introduced onto the floor.

It's the same exact bill from 2021, which died in the Senate because it had LGBTQ protections in it. Upstate lawmaker John McCravy, R-Greenwood, was the only lawmaker to vote against it in committee.

Let's dive into what happened.

A possible ballot initiative that will ask SC voters if public funding of religious schools should be allowed

In what marks yet another chapter in the state's history of trying to fund religious, private schools, House Speaker Murrell Smith, R-Sumter, introduced H.3591 on Feb. 28. If passed, SC voters may find the following question when they vote during the 2024 general election:

"Must Section 4, Article XI of the Constitution of this State be repealed so as to eliminate the prohibition against the State or its political subdivisions providing direct aid to religious or other private educational institutions?"

Smith started the introduction of this bill with a history lesson.

The current provision is an evolved brainchild of a U.S. lawmaker from the late 1800s. In 1875, U.S. House Speaker James Blaine tried to amend the U.S. Constitution and prohibit states from funding religious education. Blaine failed on the national level but succeeded on the state level as 36 states took versions of his amendment and codified it in their constitutions. In South Carolina, the effort to institutionalize a ban on funding religious schools was led by Benjamin "Pitchfork" Tillman.

More:The shocking history of Ben Tillman and how South Carolina still honors the violent racist

Many of the Blaine Amendments stemmed from sectarian tensions between Catholics and Protestants. When waves of Irish and Italian immigrants made their way to the U.S. in the late 19th century, Catholic parents were unnerved by the Protestant influence in public schools, so they opened their own schools. Protestants saw that and were concerned the government might fund those schools and Catholicize American education, especially since several Catholic schools also took in children of newly freed slaves.

Each state adopted varying versions of these amendments. Some prevented direct public funding of just religious educational organizations, while others targeted all religious organizations or just limited it to indirect funding, where states could find third parties to act as a conduit for funding.

South Carolina banned all types of funding to religious, private schools until 1973. That year, in a post-segregation world, when public schools were racially integrated, lawmakers tweaked the law to allow the use of indirect pathways like voucher programs or scholarship funds to fund religious, private schools with taxpayer money.

More:Desegregation, 50 years later: Voices and stories of school integration in Greenville SC

Smith said the proposed move will repeal the remnants of a bigoted past and would make other policies related to funding ironclad against legal challenges.

His arguments in defense of the bill came from the 2020 SC Supreme Court ruling where the top court blocked Gov. Henry McMaster from steering federal COVID-19 relief funds into private colleges and schools. Judges had opined McMaster was violating the state constitution.

The 2020 decision put other scholarship programs at risk, Smith said. At present, the state has tax credit programs, scholarships and proposed voucher legislation that direct money toward religious or other private schools. Repealing the provision would make these programs watertight against future litigation.

Rep. Russell Ott, D-Calhoun, questioned if there was an actual need to strike down the provision since all the programs Smith mentioned indirectly funded private schools and were hence within state law.

“We're creating the issue today,” Ott said. “It hasn't ever been an issue, Mr. Smith, because it's never been challenged. We are now insinuating that it could possibly be challenged in court one day, so we're going to amend the Constitution.”

Smith then brought up litigation from last year. The State newspaper reported in 2022 that lawmakers appropriated $1.5 million to a Christian learning center in Greenville. Residents then sued the government for violating the state constitution. The case is still pending in the courts.

“What you're saying is we all just let the courts decide it's our ability,” Smith rebutted. “If we know that we have constitutional problems, if we have statutory problems, then we need to bring this forward and deal with this and not just hope that nothing ever happens.”

Rep. Joseph Jefferson, D-Berkeley, who served in the Berkeley County School Board for 11 years, was concerned about how this could impact public schools. Every year, Jefferson said, a school choice debate popped up. Parents sending children to schools of their choice could have led to some of the public school closures because everybody wants to take their kids to the most recently built school, Jefferson said.

Jefferson also asked while the state was trying to increase all the educational network salaries, whether it be teachers, cooks, or bus drivers, what assurance could Smith give about having enough funds to continue funding public schools?

Rep. Justin Bamberg, D-Bamberg, filed an amendment to also repeal the Heritage Act within the ballot question.

Bamberg said the protection of Confederate memorabilia came at the time when the Blaine amendments were codified in the state constitution.

“Everything is intertwined. All of the testimony at judiciary [committee] on the bill itself spoke to racism,” Bamberg said. During the committee process, specific references were made to the South Carolina constitution of 1895, which was created following the Civil War and included the state's original Blaine Amendment, Bamberg said.

The House passed the bill 83-27.

Hate Crimes bill expected to go to the debate floor in March

South Carolina and Wyoming are the only two states in the U.S. without a hate crimes law. But lawmakers want to change that.

The hate crimes bill, named after late Sen. Clementa C. Pinkney who died in the Mother Emanuel Church Massacre at the hands of the white supremacist Dylann Roof, would enhance penalties for a violent crime if they were motivated by a bias or prejudice against a person or a group based on the victims' race, color, religion, sex, gender, national origin, sexual orientation or physical or mental disability.

More:They lost loved ones in a mass shooting in Charleston. Now, they fight to stop the next one

A hate crimes law could add up to five years to a person's sentencing as well as a fine of not more than $10,000. Prosecutors would have to build a case and prove that there was a bias in the perpetrator's actions to justify the hate crime charge. Twenty members of the Judiciary Committee voted in favor, three did not vote and one Upstate lawmaker, John McCravy, R-Greenwood, said no.

What to watch for this week in SC politics:

On March 7, 2023, an hour and a half after the House adjourns debate, a House Committee will hear public testimony on bill H.3870, which would permit "Narcotic treatment program" or "NTP" to safely administer methadone or other narcotic treatment medications.

On March 7, 2023, 15 minutes after the Senate adjourns debate, a Senate Committee will hear two bills (S.0392 and S.0576) that would limit foreign adversary (eg. China) owned properties in the state to 1000 acres.

Devyani Chhetri covers the South Carolina State House and is a watchdog SC government reporter. You can reach her at dchhetri@gannett.com or @ChhetriDevyani. 

This article originally appeared on Greenville News: South Carolina politics: Steering public money to religious schools