Once again, the courts are being asked to settle what is essentially a dispute between Gov. Mark Sanford and the Legislature. This time, it’s over the stated intention of the State Ethics Commission to turn over its preliminary investigative report of Mr. Sanford’s travel and expenditures to the House, to use as part of an expected impeachment effort.

Unlike previous court-refereed disputes (the governor’s illegal refusal to request federal stimulus funds, the Legislature’s unconstitutional practice of loading up bills with unrelated amendments), it’s not clear which side is right this time. Our Supreme Court is obviously much more capable than we of sorting that out.

But it is likewise unclear that this even needs to be sorted out by the court. ...

The obvious solution, the one that ought to satisfy everyone’s stated concerns, is for the governor to authorize the commission to turn over its facts: the flight records from agencies, expense reports, documentation for the governor’s campaign expenditures, the governor’s calendar, and so on. (We’re not convinced that the law allows someone being investigated to pick and choose what will be made public, but the Ethics Commission seems to have taken the position that it does, so unless the court decides to take up that matter, there’s no reason this approach couldn’t work.)

Indications are that all the information the commission is compiling is public record, which the House could gather up itself. But why in the world would anyone want to spend precious tax dollars duplicating such ministerial efforts - particularly if, like the governor, you’ve spent the past six and a half years complaining about just that sort of wasteful redundancy?

The (Columbia) State