Summary#
H-5812 is a concurrent resolution, not a bill that amends a law. It would have the House and Senate find, by a two-thirds vote in each, that South Carolina Secretary of Commerce Harry M. Lightsey III willfully neglected his duty. Its stated goal is his removal under a constitutional process; the resolution has been introduced and referred to the House Judiciary Committee, so it is not in effect.
- The resolution names Lightsey and makes a formal finding about his conduct.
- The state Constitution, as quoted in the resolution, says the governor must remove an executive or judicial officer after an address approved by two-thirds of each legislative chamber for willful neglect of duty or other reasonable cause short of impeachment.
- The resolution does not itself say that Lightsey is removed or expressly direct the governor to remove him. It does not explain whether its finding is the constitutional “address” that triggers removal.
What it means for you#
- Secretary of Commerce: The resolution could lead to his removal if it is adopted and functions as the constitutional address. The text does not itself remove him.
- General public: The resolution does not directly change public services, taxes, fees, or individual rights.
- Legislators: Each chamber would need to approve the resolution by a two-thirds vote for the finding it describes.
Money#
No cost information is in the available material.
- The resolution does not specify spending, staffing, fees, or other costs.
What is unclear#
- The resolution does not describe the actions behind its finding of willful neglect. No publicly available information.
- It does not explain whether the resolution’s finding alone would count as the constitutional address, or what further step the governor would take. No publicly available information.
- It sets out no process for Lightsey to respond, no timeline, and no review or appeal process.
- It does not state when any removal would take effect.
Case for#
- The Constitution provides a removal route for serious neglect or other reasonable cause that does not amount to grounds for impeachment.
- Requiring two-thirds approval in both chambers means the finding would need substantial legislative agreement.
- A possible argument for the resolution is that it uses this constitutional route to hold an executive officer accountable.
Case against#
- The resolution gives no details about the conduct behind the finding, making it hard for readers to assess its basis.
- It does not explain whether its wording formally triggers the constitutional removal process.
- The text sets out no way for Lightsey to respond or contest the finding.