View Comments
The South Carolina Supreme Court took up the Heritage Act Tuesday with opening arguments for and against the controversial legislation.
The Heritage Act forbids any changes to public facilities and monuments named for historical figures without two-thirds approval of the General Assembly. The lawsuit being heard claims the act is unconstitutional because it violates municipalities right to govern local matters and the supermajority vote prevents current and future lawmakers from addressing the issues brought up by the law.
Arguments mainly hinged on the act s two-thirds vote provision, with appellant lawyer Matthew Richardson saying the supermajority was a compromise of the 2000 state Legislature and was intended by then-lawmakers to keep any changes to historical monuments or buildings from being altered or removed.