All those pesky races on the ballot and the attention on the big dance left little newspaper ink for the three constitutional amendments on the S.C. ballot on Tuesday. Fourteen-year-old girls narrowly secured the preservation of their virtue, but the two questions tied to investing government savings for retiree benefits failed.
I’m pretty sure this line wasn’t on that form that explained the ballot question:
South Carolina voters … refused to let state and local officials invest some money … so residents may end up with higher taxes or reduced services instead.
Um, thanks Associated Press. Where were you a week ago? But wait, it gets worse.
For example, Charleston will have to find an additional $800,000 a year to put into its benefit fund for retirees. The city is already putting $1.1 million into the fund annually, according to Stephen Bedard, chief financial officer for the city.
Campaigning in support of some of these ballot measures can be ethically tricky, but there’s nothing illegal about explaining the impacts of a particular amendment to taxpayers. Where was the city in predicting an $800,000 hole prior to the election?
Considering where the stock market is right now, we’re not sure it would have changed our vote, but it would have been nice to have a better understanding of the impacts.
Kudos to Post and Courier’s David Slade for reporting on this a good six weeks before Election Day. And it’s a stink eye for the P&C’s editorial board for making no mention of the fiscal impacts when it told voters earlier this week to say “no” to the amendment question.