Critics enjoy slamming the Washington bureaucracy for moving so slowly, but the wheels don't seem to turn any faster in South Carolina. More than two months and one week after the State Ethics Commission charged Gov. Mark Sanford with 37 ethics violations, the panel has yet to hold a single hearing on the charges.

And don't expect one soon. Herbert Hayden, the commission's executive director, told The State newspaper why hearings have not yet begun.

The commissioners all have day jobs, Hayden said, and the Sanford hearing is expected to be a long day.

"It's strictly a scheduling issue," Hayden said, "With the assumed length of the hearing, it's going to have to be a special day set aside."

However, the case could be disposed of before a hearing if Sanford and the Ethics Commission agree to a settlement.

At this rate, I'm beginning to wonder if a new governor will be elected by the time the S.C. commission completes hearings on its own charges.

If you need a reminder as to why Gov. Sanford is such an ethically disgraced official, click here, go to page 4 and read "Gov. Mark Sanford's Excellent Argentinian Adventure."

By a margin of 102-11, the South Carolina House of Representatives has voted to censure its ethically disgraced governor. According to the Associated Press:

Before the vote, (Gov. Mark) Sanford said he wouldn't attend the session or watch and would have no comment. "It is what it is," Sanford said.

... The censure requires state Senate approval for passage.

... In addition to the censure, Sanford also faces up to $74,000 in fines from the State Ethics Commission, which contends he broke more than three dozen laws involving travel in pricey airline seats, using state aircraft for personal and political trips and improper reimbursements.

Gov. Sanford's serious ethical lapses were cited last month by CREW when we released our Top Ten Ethics Scandals of 2009. Click here to read this document -- the Sanford scandal is summarized on page 4.

The South Carolina House of Representatives is expected to vote today on a resolution that formally censures Gov. Mark Sanford for "dereliction in his duties of office as Governor and for official misconduct that has brought dishonor to himself."

Click here to read the text of the resolution that the SC House will consider.

A state House committee declined last month to approve an impeachment resolution, opting instead to support a censure of the GOP governor.

The state House of Representatives in South Carolina is expected to vote next week on a motion to censure Gov. Mark Sanford for his serious ethical lapses. But here's the catch.

The SC Senate might not vote on censure for several weeks -- or it might never vote. That's the assessment of Senate President Pro Tem Glenn McConnell, who suggested to a newspaper that it's no big deal whether the state Senate votes on censure or not:

At the end of the day, what does it matter? Either you approve or disapprove. I don't know anybody (in the Senate) who supports (Sanford's) behavior."

But McConnell is missing the point. There is value in having both houses of the Legislature go on the record with a formal vote of censure. If nothing else, doing so reaffirms the Legislature's commitment to holding state officials accountable.

If both houses of the SC Legislature have the time to vote on a resolution honoring a Union County library for being named "the best small library in America," then surely both houses can take the time to vote on the motion to censure Gov. Sanford.

In case you missed it, CREW named the Sanford scandal one of its Top Ten Ethics Scandals of 2009.

Last month, CREW announced its legal settlement restoring and preserving White House emails from the George W. Bush years. It was a nice victory. But what about state government? Are governors and other state officials preserving emails and other records?

This issue has come to light in South Carolina, whose legislature has been probing the serious ethical issues surrounding Gov. Mark Sanford. John O'Connor, a reporter for The State newspaper, writes:

Questions about Sanford's activities led to scrutiny of past administrations and lawmakers.

Reporters and attorneys digging through state archives found that many records no longer existed. The S.C. Department of Archives and History recommends which records should be preserved. But director Eric Emerson said his agency does not have the staff to make sure state agencies are complying with the rules.

And, even worse, the Legislature has yet to insist on stronger recordkeeping rules for state officials:

Lawmakers investigating the governor this summer compared missing records to the destruction of evidence. But none of the legislation so far filed in response to the Sanford scandal addresses the preservation of e-mail and other documents.

According to the Associated Press:

South Carolina lawmakers voted Wednesday to formally rebuke Gov. Mark Sanford, again sparing him from impeachment over secret trips to see his Argentine mistress and his use of state planes.

The House Judiciary Committee unanimously agreed to censure the governor for bringing "ridicule, dishonor, disgrace and shame" to the state. Though scathing, the rebuke has no practical effect on Sanford’s ability to govern for the 13 months that remain in his term.

... Despite pleas from some members to let the full House consider impeachment, the Judiciary Committee voted it down 18-6.

Our last blog post turned out to be an accurate forecast. A subcommittee of the South Carolina state House voted down an impeachment resolution against Gov. Mark Sanford this afternoon.

The subcommittee's vote was 6-1 against the impeachment resolution. The subcommittee’s chairman was the only legislator to vote for impeachment.

According to Politico:

The news means Sanford will likely serve out the rest of his term, as the will to oust the governor has been waning in the months since he admitted to an affair with an Argentine mistress.

... If the impeachment resolution is indeed voted down by the full Judiciary Committee, South Carolina lawmakers are likely to vote on a resolution censuring the governor instead.

Years ago, a governor who had done the things that Sanford has done would resign right after they came to light. But Sanford seems content to keep collecting a paycheck as a lame-duck governor.

A few months ago, there was a lot of talk among South Carolina legislators of impeaching their governor. But the momentum for driving the ethically-challenged Gov. Mark Sanford from office appears to have slowed.

A vote on impeachment could come later today, but according to this S.C. newspaper only one of the seven legislators who will cast a committee vote on this matter has said publicly that Sanford deserves to be impeached.

And Scott Huffmon, a political scientist at S.C.'s Winthrop University, tells the Wall Street Journal:

"Over the summer, people were just absolutely amazed and asking for his impeachment. Now it's just this head shaking, apathy and shoulder shrugs."

Very disappointing.

A few days ago on this blog, we reported that questions have been raised about whether a conflict of interest would exist if South Carolina’s attorney general, Henry McMaster, were the person who prosecutes Gov. Mark Sanford for serious ethics violations. McMaster has already launched his campaign to become the state’s next governor.

So if McMaster were to step aside from the prosecution, who else would step in? Ashby Jones of the Wall Street Journal’s Law Blog writes that the federal government is one possibility:

The U.S. Department of Justice can step in to take over an investigation when the potential conflicts are just too great for state and local elected prosecutors to handle. While the United States attorneys are political appointees themselves, they are usually at least a few steps removed from local electoral politics. Unlike a sitting AG campaigning for higher office while acting as the state’s chief prosecutor, a U.S. Attorney can’t run for anything while in office.

An arm of the Department of Justice that investigates corruption is the Public Integrity Section, which is staffed by career prosecutors who have no ties to local elected officials. Their involvement is no panacea, of course, as the flawed prosecution of former Senator Ted Stevens shows. But federal prosecutors from [DOJ] are much less subject to claims that they are seeking to advance their own personal political agendas.

Jones writes that the DOJ could bring charges against Gov. Sanford under at least two federal criminal statutes.

The ethics concerns surrounding Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina are fairly well known. But as officials consider bringing formal charges against the governor, a new ethics issue has been raised. Does the state’s attorney general have a conflict of interest as he moves to prosecute Gov. Sanford?

The Wall Street Journal’s Law Blog probes this question:

Some political observers in South Carolina argue that a possible criminal investigation of Sanford could be marred if the state’s attorney general doesn’t remove himself from the case. That’s because the AG Henry McMaster might have a self-interested role.

McMaster is seeking the 2010 GOP nomination for governor, and some think that qualifies as a conflict of interest if the ethics investigation against the governor should rise to criminal charges brought by the state.

… McMaster says there’s no need for concern and that he plans to review the case. “Politics and law enforcement do not mix,” he told [a reporter]. “There are so many political angles, but my belief is that this office is up to the job and will make judgments based on the law. We will do the right thing.”

(FYI: Here is CREW’s June 2009 letter requesting an investigation by the state ethics commission and here is CREW’s Melanie Sloan telling NBC’s “Nightly News” that Sanford should resign.)