By Jerry Bellune 
JerryBellune@yahoo.com
SC lawmakers can change a law that protects controversial monuments with a majority vote.
That’s Attorney General Alan Wilson’s opinion.
He told the Chronicle that contrary to an article published elsewhere, he, lawmakers and the governor are in general agreement. 
The law’s requirement for a 2/3rd’s majority vote to amend or do away with it is unconstitutional,.
“Past lawmakers cannot require lawmakers in 2021 to come up with that many votes to undo their law,” Wilson told the Chronicle. 
“They didn’t even have a super majority when they passed that law.”
Memorials to Confederate soldiers and supporters of slavery have become politically controversial.
A lawsuit in the SC Supreme Court argues that the so-called Heritage Act:
• Violates local governments’ rights to set their own policies.
• Its super majority requirement is an unconstitutional power grab by past state legislators.
The lawsuit was filed in July by former state Sen. Kay Patterson, Columbia City Councilman Howard Duvall and Jennifer Pinckney, the widow of late state Sen. Clementa Pinckney, 1 of 9 Charleston churchgoers slain by white supremacist Dylann Roof of Lexington.
Wilson told the Chronicle he expects the Supreme Court to rule in favor of the lawsuit that the Heritage Act is unconstitutional
Patterson, Duvall and Pinckney charge that the Heritage Act unfairly requires future lawmakers to meet an almost impossible standard to remove or change Civil War memorials in public spaces.
At that time the law was passed, it was a part of a compromise to move the Confederate flag from the State House dome to in front of the State House.
In 2015, shock over the massacre of 9 Black parishioners at the Charleston church led Gov. Nikki Haley of Lexington and lawmakers to move the flag to the Confederate Relic Room at the State Museum.