South Carolina Senate Votes to Oust State Treasurer Over $1.8 Billion Error
The 33–8 vote followed an hours-long hearing of the full Senate, during which state Sens. Larry Grooms and Stephen Goldfinch, both Republicans, pushed for state Treasurer Curtis Loftis's removal over a $1.8 billion accounting error.
'The big secret of Treasurer Loftis, the one that he's kept hidden away, is that there are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars in errors in the Treasury books today, and he doesn't know how to fix them,' Grooms said in opening the hearing.
A state Senate Finance subcommittee
An outside forensic
Loftis, now in his fourth term, was first elected treasurer in 2010 and has held the office since.
Related Stories
4/11/2025
4/6/2025
While two other public officials have resigned in connection with the state's accounting issues, Loftis, Grooms said, 'remains defiant and refuses to take responsibility for his failures.'
Loftis, defending his record, likened himself to President Donald Trump, who vociferously denounced various investigations related to his affairs.
'I'm inspired by President Trump, and I, too, will not back down,' Loftis said.
During prior Senate testimony, the treasurer indicated that the inexplicable funds not only existed but had been invested and were generating returns. After the audit, however, he claimed the report 'validated what we've known all along,' a statement that Goldfinch derided as 'a lie.'
The senator accused Loftis of attempting to cover up a serious error that he knew would damage his reputation.
Loftis's attorneys downplayed the discrepancy as 'an on-paper accounting error' and 'an honest mistake.'
'AlixPartners reviewed more than 1 million documents and did not find a single piece of evidence suggesting wrongdoing by the treasurer,' noted Shawn Eubanks, an attorney in the treasurer's office, referencing the firm that conducted the forensic audit.
Eubanks further held that the audit report provided 'good news for the state' in that it found no missing or stolen funds.
'The treasurer's books reconcile to the bank,' he said.
Loftis's lawyers also criticized the Legislature's efforts to oust him as a violation of both his due process rights and the will of the voters who elected him.
'Treasurer Loftis is the most popular statewide official in the history of South Carolina. This is a man who received 80 percent of the vote in the last election, a man who received overwhelming bipartisan support,' attorney Debbie Barbier said.
Decrying the proceedings as 'drastic' and unprecedented, Barbier said lawmakers had stripped Loftis of his right to call and confront witnesses by using the state's removal on address procedure rather than impeachment.
'They're asking you to make this decision not based on a trial, not with witnesses, not with exhibits and documents and expert testimony and authentication of documents, not with rules of evidence, but based upon a one-and-a-half-hour presentation with video clips,' she said. 'There is not one shred of proof and absolutely no evidence to support the removal of Treasurer Loftis.'
The more common impeachment process gives lawmakers the power to impeach and convict a statewide officer for 'serious crimes or serious misconduct in office.' The South Carolina Constitution also provides an avenue to removal for 'willful neglect of duty' or another 'reasonable cause' deemed insufficient for impeachment. That process requires the governor to remove an officer 'on the address of two-thirds of each house of the General Assembly' after a hearing.
If Loftis is removed, he would become the first state official in South Carolina's 235-year history to be ousted under the provision.
It will now be up to the state House, also under GOP control, to decide whether to hold a hearing on the matter.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
16 minutes ago
- Politico
Senate passes first funding package ahead of shutdown cliff
'It's taken a great deal of work, good faith and negotiation to get to this point,' Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine). 'Congress has a responsibility, a constitutional responsibility under Article I, for the power of the purse. We are executing that responsibility.' The package would provide almost $154 billion for military construction and veterans programs. It would send more than $27 billion to the Agriculture department and FDA. Both represent a roughly 2 percent boost over current levels. The Senate rejected an amendment from Sen. Jeff Merkley, an appropriator and the top Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee, that would bar the rescission, or clawback, of funds in the bill by the White House. Democrats are worried that the administration will send another rescissions package ahead of the fall funding deadline, which would likely implode any hopes of getting a larger funding deal. Still, Sen. Patty Murray, the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, defended the smaller deal reached among senators, saying that the package 'rejects damaging cuts from Trump and House Republicans.' The Senate adopted by voice vote an amendment from Democratic Sens. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Alex Padilla of California that would bar the use of any funds in the bill to reduce services provided by the Veterans Crisis Line. Senators rejected other amendments from Democrats including one that would have halted funding of the Agriculture Department reorganization and another to require a report on staffing reductions at the VA. They also rejected amendments from Sens. John Kennedy (R-La.) and Rick Scott (R-Fla.) that would have made deeper cuts to the Agriculture-FDA bill. The chamber also voted 75-21 to reject a proposal from Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin that would bar lawmakers from taking credit for earmarks. It would require the funding to be revoked if a lawmaker were to ever tout their earmarks in interviews, mailings, speeches or even on the campaign trail.
Axios
an hour ago
- Axios
Federal judge defers ruling on Alina Habba's legal authority
A federal judge on Friday deferred ruling on Alina Habba's legal authority as a prosecutor after President Trump tapped her to lead the U.S. attorney's office for New Jersey. The big picture: A lawyer sought to get a criminal case in New Jersey dismissed by questioning Habba's legitimacy to lead the U.S. attorney's office in the state and arguing that the way the Trump administration restored her authority over the office was "unconstitutional." Catch up quick: In March, Trump appointed his then-presidential counselor Habba to serve as interim U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey. That allowed her to work in an acting capacity for 120 days while awaiting Senate confirmation. With Habba's confirmation stalled, the local district court appointed a new prosecutor to serve until the vacancy was filled. Attorney General Pam Bondi terminated the appointment hours later. Trump then withdrew Habba's nomination as the U.S. attorney so that she could be appointed to the position of first assistant U.S. attorney, making her the acting leader of the office. Driving the news: Judge Matthew Brann of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania wrote in the opinion that the motion to dismiss the case is both denied in part and deferred in part. The defendant, Julien Giraud Jr. who is facing charges in a drug and gun-related case, is entitled to injunctive relief "precluding Ms. Habba from participating in their prosecution if they are correct that she was appointed in violation of statute or the Constitution." That injunctive relief, the judge wrote, should extend to Assistant United States Attorneys "purporting to operate pursuant to Ms. Habba's authority." The judge added, "Because relief will be available to them if they are correct, the court should reach the merits of the Girauds' claims," Brann added. Context: Attorney Thomas Mirigliano asked the court to dismiss the indictment or stop Habba and any other attorney acting under "her purported authority" from prosecuting the case.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Who is Erika McEntarfer, the Bureau of Labor Statistics commissioner fired by Trump?
WASHINGTON (AP) — The head of the agency that compiles the closely watched monthly jobs report usually toils in obscurity, but on Friday, the current holder of that job was loudly fired by the president of the United States. Erika McEntarfer, a longtime government employee, bore the brunt of President Donald Trump's unhappiness with Friday's jobs report, which showed that hiring had slowed in July and was much less in May and June that previously estimated. He accused her without evidence of manipulating the job numbers and noted she was an appointee of President Joe Biden. McEntarfer, a longtime government worker who had served as BLS head for a year and a half, did not immediately respond to a request for comment by The Associated Press. But her predecessor overseeing the jobs agency, former co-workers and associates have denounced the firing, warning about its repercussions and saying McEntarfer was nonpolitical in her role. Here's what to know about Erika McEntarfer: McEntarfer has a strong background on economics McEntarfer, whose research focuses on job loss, retirement, worker mobility, and wage rigidity, had previously worked at the Census Bureau's Center for Economic Studies, the Treasury Department's Office of Tax Policy and the White House Council of Economic Advisers in a nonpolitical role. She has a bachelor's degree in Social Science from Bard College and a doctoral degree in economics from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. She was confirmed as BLS head on a bipartisan vote McEntarfer was nominated in 2023 to serve as BLS head, and the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions recommended that her nomination go to the full Senate for a vote. She was confirmed as BLS commissioner in January 2024 on a bipartisan 86-8 Senate vote. Among the Republican senators who voted to confirm her included then-Sen. JD Vance of Ohio, who is now Trump's vice president, and then-Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, who is now Trump's secretary of state. Before her confirmation hearing, a group called the Friends of the BLS, made up of former commissioners who served in both Democratic and Republican administrations, members of statistical associations and credentialed economists, said McEntarfer's background made her a great choice for the job. 'The many reasons to quickly confirm Dr. McEntarfer as the new BLS Commissioner all boil down to this: the agency, like the entire statistical system, is undergoing an intense, significant period of change and Dr. McEntarfer's wealth of research and statistical experience have equipped her to be the strong leader that BLS needs to meet these challenges,' Friends of the BLS wrote. Her former associates and co-workers decry her firing William Beach, who was appointed BLS commissioner in 2019 by Trump and served until 2023 during President Joe Biden's administration, called McEntarfer's firing 'groundless' and said in an X post that it 'sets a dangerous precedent and undermines the statistical mission of the Bureau.' Former Labor Department chief economist Sarah J. Glynn, who received regular briefings from McEntarfer about BLS findings, said McEntarfer was generous with her time explaining what conclusions could or couldn't be reached from the data. If the data didn't support something an administration official was saying, McEntarfer would say so, Glynn said. She also never weighed in on how the administration should present or interpret the data, Glynn said — she would simply answer questions about the data. 'She had a sterling reputation as someone who is concerned about the accuracy of the data and not someone who puts a political spin on her work,' Glynn said. Heather Boushey, a senior research fellow at Harvard University, served with McEntarfer on the White House Council of Economic Advisers and said McEntarfer never talked politics at work. 'She showed up every day to focus on the best analysis and the best approach to her field and not get political. That is what I saw from her time and again. She is brilliant and well-respected among labor economists generally,' Boushey said. 'She wasn't coming into my office to talk politics or the political implications of something. She definitely wasn't engaging on that side of things.'
