Senate advances wide-ranging DUI reform after hours of amendment debate; S.52 receives unanimous second-reading

The South Carolina Senate on the floor advanced Senate Bill 52, a comprehensive package of changes to DUI law, after extended debate and several contested amendments.

Senators adopted a series of amendments that removed a proposed requirement for additional surety bonds for repeat DUI offenders and adjusted several penalty and implementation details. "This amendment is going to delete the provision requiring additional surety bonds," said Senator Adams (Berkeley) during floor remarks explaining the amendment’s text and intent, adding that the amendment also "reinstates the current law provision that would state a person is conclusively presumed not under the influence of alcohol if their alcohol concentration is below the 0.05 or less." Adams framed the change as a practical fix after consulting regulators and stakeholders.

A substantial floor exchange centered on how the state should handle prosecution of magistrate-level DUI cases. Senator Morey (appearing as the sponsor of a prosecutorial amendment) summarized the proposal: "The solicitors will be responsible for all magistrate-level DUI cases in the unincorporated areas of South Carolina," a change intended to centralize prosecution and move many trooper-referred matters into a consistent prosecutorial pathway.

Several senators pressed for clarity about municipal courts, funding and practical implementation. Concerns included whether small towns would receive sufficient prosecutor coverage and whether the state should provide transition funding. Senators suggested budget provisos or a time-limited appropriation to pilot solicitor assistance in small municipalities and avoid a blunt unfunded mandate.

Floor action also included a Department of Insurance study: the body adopted an amendment directing the Department of Insurance to report back by December 31, 2026 on the feasibility of creating an affordable surety-bond mechanism for repeat offenders. "We're asking Department of Insurance to report back to us within a year on how we can create a direction ... to hold these drivers more accountable," Senator Adams said while explaining the amendment.

A separate, consequential debate concerned whether to add a felony reckless-driving offense for cases that cause great bodily injury. The Senate held lengthy argument about the statutory standard "willful or wanton disregard for the safety of others," with members on both sides warning about overbreadth and unintended consequences for ordinary traffic accidents. After debate and a roll-call, the amendment proposing to elevate certain great-bodily-injury reckless-driving penalties to a felony failed in a roll call (amendment vote recorded 19–27 against).

Later in the sequence the body agreed to an amendment that reduced the classification of great-bodily-injury reckless driving from a felony to a misdemeanor, a change that the amendment sponsor presented as a compromise to address concerns about the felony label’s collateral consequences.

After the amendment sequence concluded, the clerk called the roll for second reading. By a vote of 45 to 0, the Senate recorded the second-reading approval of S.52. The legislation will proceed with the adopted package of amendments and with the Department of Insurance reporting requirement noted above.

Votes and next steps: S.52 passed second reading 45–0 and remains on the Senate calendar for subsequent reading and final passage steps. The bill’s proponents said they expect follow-up work on funding and implementation details for the magistrate-prosecution elements and the DOI study. Opponents urged careful monitoring and, when necessary, future statutory refinement to avoid overcriminalization or unworkable mandates.

Context: The bill drew strong advocacy and attention from victims’ groups and public-safety stakeholders during committee work and among members; the floor debate focused on balancing victim outcomes, prosecutorial capacity and implementation feasibility.

What’s next: With second reading achieved, the bill will return later on the calendar for third reading and final disposition, subject to any additional floor amendments or conference work with the House.