AN ACT TO AMEND THE SOUTH CAROLINA CODE OF LAWS BY AMENDING SECTION 15-38-15, RELATING TO JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY AND THE APPORTIONMENT OF PERCENTAGES OF FAULT AND ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE OR DRUG EXCEPTIONS, AMONG OTHER THINGS, SO AS TO FURTHER MODIFY PROVISIONS RELATING TO JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY, TO REMOVE THE EXCEPTION TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION APPLYING TO THE USE, SALE, OR POSSESSION OF ALCOHOL, TO PROVIDE PROCEDURES FOR THE INCLUSION OF ADDITIONAL TORTFEASORS IN A CAUSE OF ACTION AND FOR THE TRIER OF FACT TO ALLOCATE FAULT TO ADDITIONAL TORTFEASORS, AND TO PROVIDE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH ADDITIONAL NONDEFENDANT TORTFEASORS SHALL BE ADDED TO A VERDICT FORM AND CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THEY SHALL NOT BE ADDED; BY AMENDING SECTION 61-6-2220, RELATING TO ALCOHOL SALES, SO AS TO PROHIBIT A PERSON FROM KNOWINGLY SELLING ALCOHOL TO AN INTOXICATED PERSON; BY ADDING CHAPTER 3 TO TITLE 61 SO AS TO ESTABLISH AN ALCOHOL SERVER TRAINING REQUIREMENT; BY AMENDING SECTION 61-2-60, RELATING TO REGULATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE REGULATIONS FOR THE ALCOHOL SERVER TRAINING REQUIREMENTS; BY AMENDING SECTION 61-4-580, RELATING TO PROHIBITED ACTS BY HOLDERS OF PERMITS AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF BEER OR WINE, SO AS TO PROVIDE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS; BY ADDING SECTION 61-4-523 SO AS TO PROVIDE PROCEDURES FOR THE SALE OF BEER AND WINE AT COLLEGIATE SPORTING EVENTS UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES; BY ADDING SECTION 38-73-550 SO AS TO REQUIRE THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE TO MAKE CERTAIN REPORTS REGARDING LIQUOR LIABILITY COVERAGE IN THIS STATE; BY AMENDING SECTION 38-90-20, RELATING TO LICENSING, REQUIRED INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTATION, FEES, AND RENEWAL, SO AS TO INCLUDE LIQUOR LIABILITY INSURANCE; BY AMENDING SECTION 61-2-145, RELATING TO THE REQUIREMENT OF LIABILITY INSURANCE COVERAGE, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR LIQUOR LIABILITY RISK MITIGATION; AND BY ADDING SECTION 61-2-147 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT TORTFEASORS CHARGED WITH CERTAIN DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OFFENSES SHALL APPEAR ON THE JURY VERDICT FORM UPON MOTION OF THE DEFENDANT UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, AND TO PROVIDE IF A VERDICT IS RENDERED AGAINST BOTH A LICENSEE AND A DEFENDANT CHARGED WITH CERTAIN DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OFFENSES THAT THE LICENSEE IS JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE FOR FIFTY PERCENT OF THE PLAINTIFF'S ACTUAL DAMAGES.
The implications of HB 3430 on state law are profound. By shifting the appointment power for the State Auditor from a less formalized process to one requiring Senate confirmation, the bill establishes a more formal relationship between the Executive and Legislative branches of state government. This change is anticipated to improve the auditor's oversight capacity and perhaps lead to a more thorough examination of state expenditures and financial practices. It redefines the role of the State Auditor, making it not only a position of accountability but also one influenced by political considerations.
House Bill 3430 proposes significant changes to the governance structure regarding the appointment and oversight of the State Auditor in South Carolina. Specifically, it mandates that the Governor appoint the State Auditor with the advice and consent of the Senate, thereby increasing legislative control over this executive function. This amendment is aimed at enhancing accountability and transparency within the state's financial oversight functions, reflecting a growing trend towards more checks and balances in governmental operations.
General sentiment around the bill appears favorable, particularly from advocates of government accountability who see this as a step towards ensuring that the financial oversight body remains independent but responsible. However, some critics raise concerns about potential politicization of the position, suggesting that requiring Senate approval could lead to the appointment of auditors based on political allegiance rather than merit. This concern underscores a common apprehension in governance about balancing independence with accountability.
Notably, there have been points of contention among stakeholders regarding the potential for increased partisanship in the appointment process. Opponents argue that this requirement may deter qualified candidates from aspiring to the role if they perceive a complex political approval process. Furthermore, concerns have been raised regarding the timing of these processes, particularly in the context of overlapping election cycles which may lead to disruptions in continuity and stability in financial oversight if the bill is enacted.