COLUMBIA, S.C. (WSPA) – A planned pay raise for South Carolina lawmakers is on hold for now by the state’s supreme court.

The proposed pay increase is referred to as an “in-district expense.” This is the funding that legislators can utilize for fulfilling their official duties when they are not present at the State House.

The South Carolina Supreme Court has intervened to halt the pay raise following a lawsuit that questioned its validity. Consequently, legislators will not receive additional funds in their accounts next month. The Court has also put a temporary hold on the raises while it conducts a more detailed review of the matter.

Former State Senator and Attorney Dick Harpootlian, who is involved in the case, called the court’s intervention “a huge win for democracy.”

“They examine the Constitution and any relevant legislation and interpret them. The Court has the authority to limit the actions of both the legislature and the governor,” Harpootlian stated.

At the heart of the lawsuit is a provision in the state’s newly passed budget that includes an additional $18,000 per year “in-district pay” for lawmakers. This increase does not apply to their base salaries.

However, some people say it violates the South Carolina Constitution, which prohibits elected officials from giving themselves a raise during their current term.

State Senator Wes Climer (R – York) and Harpootlian argue that the raise is unconstitutional and should have been deferred until after the next election.

“I wanted to get involved in this because it was clearly a constitutional violation,” said Harpootlian. “The legislature needs to be reminded from time to time that their conduct is not unfettered. There are other branches of government.”

Senator Tom Davis (R – Beaufort) agreed, “Process matters. The right process wasn’t followed here. And then substance matters. Any increase in compensation ought to be prospective in nature and take effect only after the next election.”

Supporters of the increase, like Senator Overture Walker (D – Richland), argue the additional funds are long overdue and reflect the rising costs of public service.

“We’re behind the times,” Walker said. “We have not kept up with inflation or the cost of what it takes to actually serve in the role of an elected official.”

Both sides have until September to file legal arguments, and a final decision will come afterward.