Chief justice's bike rally memo only HER opinion

On Sunday, The Sun News said Myrtle Beach leaders should ignore the S.C. chief justice's motorcycle memo and let the courts sort out the legality of its bike rally ordinances:

It can't be good that the chief justice of the S.C. Supreme Court takes a dim view of the Myrtle Beach plan to deal with motorcycle infractions in its new administrative court. If Chief Justice Jean Toal's view that the administrative court system is unconstitutionally "repugnant" holds up in a formal court challenge, many of the motorcycle-control ordinances that the Myrtle Beach City Council adopted last year would be difficult - if not impossible - to enforce.

It's far from certain, however, that Toal's dim view of this idea would become, upon appeal, the dominant Supreme Court view. For that reason, the city should stick with its strategy for ratcheting down the motorcycle rallies and fight for it in court.

As the council was working its way through the ordinance proposals last year, City Attorney Tom Ellenburg assured members that the administrative approach to motorcycle justice does meet state constitutional and statutory requirements. The gentleman is no fool on such matters, but in the end, that's just his opinion of the legality of the city's motorcycle suppression strategy - and Toal's view, expressed in her memo to S.C. municipal leaders last week, is just her opinion.

Toal's objection to the administrative approach, under which the city will treat motorcycle ordinance violations as civil infractions: It would undermine the state's uniform judicial system in violation of Articles V and VIII of the S.C. Constitution. The gist of her concern appears to be that behavior deemed illegal in Myrtle Beach would be permissible in other cities and in unincorporated areas of the state.

That concern, while understandable, flies in the face of the state's home-rule statute, which gives local governments broad powers to adopt laws to deal with unique local problems. Implicit in that statute's very existence is the possibility that behavior that's legal in some parts of the state would be illegal in others.

Other S.C. municipalities have used their home-rule powers in similar fashion, mainly to enact public smoking bans and treat violations as administrative infractions. Toal's memo went to their leadership as well.

It was this home-rule philosophy that City Council, under Ellenburg's direction, employed to deal with the special concerns that come with the motorcycle rallies - their sheer duration, their negative effects on the public order, the unique crowd-control they pose for police and their public safety concerns. No other municipality in South Carolina faces such challenges.

As we have noted before, the City Council's attempt to assume greater control of the May motorcycle rallies appears to be a legitimate use of home-rule powers. But only the courts can say for sure.

Toal's memo raises the question whether the city should proceed with its planned April 21 administrative hearings into the ordinance violations that a group of bikers incurred during a protest ride last month. The city should hold the hearings.

What better way to test the constitutionality of the motorcycle ordinances than defend actual cases in the courts? Certainly, that's what the bikers who participated in the protest ride were hoping would happen.

Both sides to this controversial new approach to motorcycle rally control deserve their day in court. That process will clarify whether Toal's take on the ordinances is wrong or right.

Comments?

It's far from certain, however, that Toal's dim view of this idea would become, upon appeal, the dominant Supreme Court view. For that reason, the city should stick with its strategy for ratcheting down the motorcycle rallies and fight for it in court.

As the council was working its way through the ordinance proposals last year, City Attorney Tom Ellenburg assured members that the administrative approach to motorcycle justice does meet state constitutional and statutory requirements. The gentleman is no fool on such matters, but in the end, that's just his opinion of the legality of the city's motorcycle suppression strategy - and Toal's view, expressed in her memo to S.C. municipal leaders last week, is just her opinion.

Toal's objection to the administrative approach, under which the city will treat motorcycle ordinance violations as civil infractions: It would undermine the state's uniform judicial system in violation of Articles V and VIII of the S.C. Constitution. The gist of her concern appears to be that behavior deemed illegal in Myrtle Beach would be permissible in other cities and in unincorporated areas of the state.

That concern, while understandable, flies in the face of the state's home-rule statute, which gives local governments broad powers to adopt laws to deal with unique local problems. Implicit in that statute's very existence is the possibility that behavior that's legal in some parts of the state would be illegal in others.

Other S.C. municipalities have used their home-rule powers in similar fashion, mainly to enact public smoking bans and treat violations as administrative infractions. Toal's memo went to their leadership as well.

It was this home-rule philosophy that City Council, under Ellenburg's direction, employed to deal with the special concerns that come with the motorcycle rallies - their sheer duration, their negative effects on the public order, the unique crowd-control they pose for police and their public safety concerns. No other municipality in South Carolina faces such challenges.

As we have noted before, the City Council's attempt to assume greater control of the May motorcycle rallies appears to be a legitimate use of home-rule powers. But only the courts can say for sure.

Toal's memo raises the question whether the city should proceed with its planned April 21 administrative hearings into the ordinance violations that a group of bikers incurred during a protest ride last month. The city should hold the hearings.

What better way to test the constitutionality of the motorcycle ordinances than defend actual cases in the courts? Certainly, that's what the bikers who participated in the protest ride were hoping would happen.

Both sides to this controversial new approach to motorcycle rally control deserve their day in court. That process will clarify whether Toal's take on the ordinances is wrong or right.

Comments?