♪ > Welcome to This Week in South Carolina , I'm Gavin Jackson.

This week we're catching up with three of our favorite State House reporters.

Jeffrey Collins with the Associated Press , Maayan Schechter with SCETV and Joe Bustos with The State Newspaper .

Guys welcome back.

Happy New Year.

New session 2026.

Jeffrey, it looks like I have something to say.

[laughter] Jeffrey> No, just thrilled to be here.

Maayan> He couldn't hold it in.

Gavin> We are three weeks into session.

We just heard from the governor.

His last, his ninth and final State of the State address last night on Wednesday night.

And I want everyone to weigh in on this.

But, Jeffrey, start with you because this is the governor's, big, his final speech.

He wasn't braggadocious, but he has a lot of accomplishments that he did tout.

He didn't snipe at folks.

He was very cordial.

What did you take away from the governor's address?

It seemed like some of his previous ones, but this was his final one.

> Well, I think, part, of it is it was a victory lap, essentially, you know, and a good chunk of the speech was him recounting what he's done.

And, and, you know, you don't want to say he's bragging about it, but he certainly wanted to remind people what he's done.

I thought it was interesting, Senate President Thomas Alexander gave him a good amount of praise to open it up.

And at the end of the speech, you know, Henry McMaster gave that praise back to the legislature.

And, I mean, that may have been the biggest takeaway for me to think about over the nine years is, you know, for folks that haven't been here for a while, it's didn't used to be like that.

I mean, most of the, most of this century's been, you know, the legislature and the governor have been at odds.

I mean, there's the piglets in the State House with Sanford.

There's Nikki Haley actively running against Republican senators.

You know, in, the early twenty-tens.

And then, you know what, ten years ago, I guess 2016 was when she, during her State of the State address, called out senators for not supporting her ethics reform.

Told them to raise their hand if they supported her.

And only a couple of them did.

And so there's always been that tension, but it's gone.

I mean, that's, Henry McMaster's legacy is working with people and doing what they wanted to do.

And he went out of his way not to be divisive in that speech.

I mean, he recounted a lot of his, accomplishments.

But one thing he fought very hard for during his term was to get as much restriction on abortion as possible.

Abortion didn't get mentioned in that speech.

That would have been a very divisive thing.

And I don't think that he wanted to bring that up because he wanted this to be a kumbaya, happy, you know, look at what I've accomplished kind of moment.

And one other thing I'll say about it is it was a very Henry McMaster speech.

We got a John Locke mention.

We got, pernicious pirates were mentioned.

We got a five minute history lesson.

<Yeah> And, and, you know, it was very, very much a true Henry McMaster kind of speech.

Gavin> And we'll talk about abortion, too, because some restrictive bills are pretty much stuck right now, too.

But of course, he has seen that accomplishment of getting that six-week ban passed during his tenure.

And that's about as good as it's going to get for these Republicans as far as what they want from abortion.

But Maayan, when we're talking about that.

We hear from the governor talking about collaboration, cooperation and communication.

I always want to say "coordination."

Maayan> Well, there's new "three Cs" now.

Gavin> There are new "three Cs" I dropped.

I'm not gonna ask you I think, consequences, I don't know what they are.

But what did you take away from the governor's speech too?

You're also in the chamber for part of it, seeing that.

And picking up on some of that energy in there.

Maayan> I think, I can echo the same as Jeffrey.

I mean, it was very much a, in a McMaster style speech.

We talked a little bit about this.

We heard some Democrats who said, "would have been a great for, you know, a drop mic moment where he would have talked about all of his enemies, talked about the people that wronged him, or maybe put out some policies that we had never heard, some proposals that he wants the next governor to do."

But that's just never been his style.

His style is always been a kind of more behind the scenes communicator when things are not going well.

He's never really called people out by name.

And we talked about this, you know, there's been legislation that he has incorporated into his tenure, which were really widely accepted and pushed by Democrats, including the expansion of four-year-old kindergarten.

So, I think the speech was very much in line with the tenure that we have seen McMaster have in the governor's office.

I would not have expected probably, any other style of speech.

But it was interesting, noting some of the policies that he touched on.

Talking about wanting to, reiterating the proposal to have the legislature approve judges or, excuse me, the Senate.

I should be clear about that.

The Senate approve judges that he nominates wanting changes with magistrate judges.

So we did hear about some policies that are starting to weave their way through the legislature itself.

But again, what stuck out to me was just the style of it.

It was much more about the whole of South Carolina rather than specific segments of South Carolina.

Gavin> Yeah, we've been talking about growth, Joe.

And the governor's been talking a lot about that, too.

We're see a lot of bills dealing with that as well.

And there's concerns about just too much growth.

And he's always talking about conservation efforts too, and wanting to preserve 10 million acres of land.

The state has about 20 million acres of land.

I don't know if he's gonna reach that goal within the next year, he's at about 3 million or so.

But what did you take away, Joe?

Wrapping up with the governor's, final speech as the 117th Governor of the state of South Carolina, > Again reiterating, the communication, collaboration and cooperation, you can almost do a drinking game with that.

I don't advise it.

But I think there was one really nice moment before he entered the room in the antechamber, Senator Luke Rankin actually, like thanked Governor McMaster.

And McMaster, reminded him I got one more year left.

[laughter] It's not... the farewell address, but I got one year left.

It is very different from the, the stories I used to hear before I got here about the days with Sanford and the days with Haley.

He has a very different style with this legislature, and he's gotten stuff he wants done.

He brags about how much he gets in the budget.

How much of his... his recommendations end up in the final budget.

And that's, it speaks to how well the relationship he has with, with the legislature.

Gavin> I think it goes to show too, right like we're, you know, everyone... not many people know how like, the whole sausage is made up here too.

They just know that something got passed.

No one really knows if it started in the Senate or is passed by a House member, or the governor has to sign it into law.

And that's not to dunk on people not knowing the process, but everyone can kind of take credit if they're working together.

It seems like his approach to a lot of his lawmaking.

Joe> Yeah, you definitely see that.

I think, I was watching your coverage last night and everyone was very complimentary.

Gavin> Democrats and Republicans.

Joe> Democrats and Republicans, "wow, everyone likes this guys."

Gavin> And we'll see what happens with his successor we won't get there yet.

Let's keep some suspense going, Jeffrey.

But... it is the second year of the two year session, so bills that didn't make it across the finish line last year were carried over.

So we really kind of came out of the gate swinging this year.

Not that they didn't last year, the Senate was really big on, education scholarship trust funds, vouchers, by another name.

But we're trying to see what's going on, in terms of this session, it's been a very busy three weeks, Senate Minority Leader Brad Hutto said before business leaders earlier this month that "if it's January, that means it's abortion."

He was talking about seeing lines of folks outside the Blatt Building for testimony for some of these really conservative restrictive bills.

Even in the off session, Senate Medical Affairs subcommittee had some testimony on a very restrictive bill too.

Both of those, the Senate and House bills are not really going anywhere.

It seems like, but what is going somewhere?

What's happening with abortion, with reproductive rights in the state right now?

And what can we maybe expect this session?

Jeffrey> You know, if anyone thought the abortion issue was going to be settled at the point where the six-week ban was put together, it's not.

I mean, it is settled in the fact that I don't think there's going to be a debate on making it more harsh this year, on maybe a complete ban or anything like that.

But, what's happened is now there's a schism within the, movement of folks that are against abortion.

There are people that are okay with the six-week ban.

There are, even people that want to go even further, the "abortion is murder" and that kind of crowd.

And that's actually splitting these right-wing kind of groups up.

And so right now they're not going to get anywhere.

But I think you're going to continually feel that pressure from that group that's a little further right and who wants a little more, you know, more restrictions on abortion.

We're going to keep feeling that pressure.

So we're probably going to have hearings, you know, when bills come up and everything, it's never going to end.

At least, I don't think it ever, really, I mean, I think it's never really going to be a settled issue.

As far as what can be done this year, though, the one bill is probably going to advance through the entire General Assembly, I think, is you make the pills, the abortion pills, the pills that you can take and cause an abortion, you make those... the same kind of drugs a Schedule IV, I believe it is, yes.

Where, you know, you have to sign for them and they're much more regulated.

And it also, bans you from giving those pills to somebody else.

Like you couldn't stockpile them and give them away or things like that.

I think that gets accomplished.

But, yeah, I don't think, abortion is going to be here for a while, at least, if not at the foreground then in the background.

Gavin> And that is just because, like you're saying, Jeffrey, this schism, I mean, it's also just in math, too.

I mean, we have seen both chambers get a little bit more conservative in their ways.

They both have supermajorities.

So if you're looking at it like that, black and white and say, well, they have these Republican supermajorities, why can't this get done?

But that is because some Republicans, some of their districts, know that they can't really go beyond that six-weeks and that this is pretty much as good as it's going to get for some of them.

Jeffrey> Well, and, you know, public polling and things like that.

I mean, the further you get, the more restrictive you get on abortion, the less support it has overall.

And I do think there are people that are Republicans, especially that are good with the six-week ban.

They're like, we just "it doesn't need to be discussed anymore.

This is not an issue that's bringing us anybody into our fold.

It only makes people, it only agitates, you know, independents and people that might be in between that might be willing to come to our side."

So, you know, I think that, you know, the folks that support the six-week ban would be glad to be done with it.

But again, you're always going to have that pressure because there's people that believe that this is a moral cause.

And, you know, if you believe it's a moral cause, those folks, you're not going to convince them to come over to your side.

Gavin> True.

And Maayan, when we're talking about you know, how much time we have left.

We're starting off week four, next week.

There's only so much time left until we get to the second Thursday in May when we end sine die.

But one of those big issues, like abortion is taxes, right?

That's the thing we always hear about.

Folks want to get down to a zero percent income tax.

Well, that's a far way away.

A lot of people are talking about that on the gubernatorial campaign trail.

Reality is a little bit different right now with what we're seeing in terms of legislation moving through the State House.

Talk to us about what we're seeing right now when it comes to reducing personal income taxes as well as property taxes, which are a bit more complex when it comes to what they can and can't do.

Maayan> Right.

So, the income tax bill, which takes down the top rate to about 5.39 percent from 6 percent, and then also for those who are earning less than 30,000 dollars would bring up the, the income tax.

I mean, the argument from particularly House leaders, but I think most State House leaders is most, many South Carolinians are not paying state income taxes.

Now, on the other side of that is state income tax revenue makes up a very, very healthy portion of the state's general fund, which is, you know, the significant pot of money for the state budget.

The income tax bill has already passed the House.

It has moved rather quickly through the Senate.

We already saw the Senate Finance Committee advance that out of committee and onto the floor.

At the same time, Senate Finance Chairman Harvey Peeler has proposed his own kind of parallel track bill.

It's the homestead exemption bill.

It would actually now, they amended it.

It was, they pushed it down to 60, they brought it back up to 65.

And then the exemption would be 150,000 dollars.

When we've talked to Chairman Peeler about just the fact that these two bills have kind of run at the same time, it's clear that there has been a bit of a message to the House that, "look, we just passed your income tax bill we didn't make one change to it.

We're going to have a property tax bill running at the same time.

You know, just think about that."

Right?

Now, we talked to Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey, who said that this is really the first time in a long time that senators, particularly those, like we think of Senator Sean Bennett, who, very, very passionate about tax policy, this is really going to be the first time that they're going to be able to chew through a very complicated, complex tax bill.

And so, again, it being the first time there are potentials that these bills do slightly change.

Now if the Senate can kick the income tax bill out of the Senate without changing it, it'll go to the governor.

Kind of remains to be seen I think, whether the House decides to tweak the homestead exemption bill.

Again for both chambers, this is kind of a big moment because we really haven't seen a lot of tax policy debate.

And it is very complicated and it is complicated to then go home and talk to your constituents about what the legislature has done.

So yeah, I think this is I think both have a really good chance this year.

I wasn't sure I could say that maybe last year that income tax was going to be, signed by the governor.

I think there is a good chance that they do deliver these bills to the governor's desk before he leaves.

But if they will look exactly the way they look right now, hard to say.

I do think the income tax has a better chance of being where it's at right now.

Because as even Senate staff have mentioned, it's very difficult to do anything to taxes without having to ding somebody.

You know, everybody's taxes, it's all different.

So, I think they've tried to figure out a way to ensure that people perhaps don't see their taxes rise.

But there is going to be a portion of the population that does see that.

Gavin> Yeah.

It sounds like we probably need another study committee to take care of all this.

Maayan> Your words, not mine.

[laughter] Gavin> We'll see where it goes.

Joe, we had a short week this week due to winter weather.

We might have another short week next week if we all get snow here in the capital city.

But there's been a lot of movement going on with some, controversial social issues.

Again, the calendar for the House is very small right now.

There's really nothing on there, but they've been getting some bills through the House Judiciary Committee.

Including this one that would codify a proviso dealing with, bathroom usage in public schools and universities and their related facilities.

Folks who, they have to use bathrooms that correspond with their, sex assigned at birth, essentially.

So it's dealing with transgender individuals, particularly.

So tell us about that bill.

It just got passed in the House on Thursday.

What its future is looking like.

And really maybe elaborate a little bit more on what it does.

Joe> So, this is one of those bills that's good for the Republican primary voter.

Get that out of the way.

You got something you get to show voters back home that "hey we're addressing the transgender, transgender issues."

So they require people to use the bathroom of their gender at birth.

And, one thing that I found interesting is it was, 96 members voted for it in the House.

So that means some Democrats crossed over.

And there was a key provision that was added late, requiring each public school and each higher education institution to have a single stall or single stall... single user facility on, on their campuses.

So that will help to help make it a little bit more palatable.

This proviso that's in the budget right now is under a lawsuit.

It was, the attorney general tried to get it all the way up to the U.S.

Supreme Court, the Supreme Court denied to take it up or declined to take it up.

It deals with a Berkeley County student who wanted to use, I believe the boys restroom.

That student has since withdrawn, but the proviso is still being challenged.

So if this became law, it most likely would be challenged.

There probably would be a lawsuit.

We would see this in court.

And, so, who knows if this would ever actually go in to effect.

Gavin> Yeah, and then get to the Senate too, I mean.

Then where it goes in the Senate is gonna be up in the air too.

Joe> Yeah.

How much time does the Senate have to really take up this type of issue, or is this just a bill that the House is putting up because everyone in there is up for reelection this year?

Gavin> And I guess a way to cover it too, is that they'll just put a proviso in the budget too if this does get stuck.

And kind of keep that going like they've been doing since 2024.

And those provisos are just one year bills.

But again this would codify that.

Jeffrey, over in the Senate, debate continued for a second week, this week on the DUI Bill S52 which would strengthen penalties specifically for repeat offenders of, driving under the influence.

This is a priority of Senate leadership.

They dropped that on us at the beginning of the month.

What's, what's going on with this bill?

Why is it taking so long?

I know it's not easy to legislate, especially when you have a bunch of lawyers in the chamber talking about how this might affect their practices, but also what's what are the ins and outs of this bill that they're really focused on?

> South Carolina DUI law is very complicated.

It's also not very effective.

I mean, less than half of all DUI cases end in a conviction in this state.

So, you know, that's all part of it, that they're not, you know, that they're trying to fix.

So, you know, right now what they're looking at is increasing the penalties both on the, on the like, the first offense end and also for the people that are repeat offenders.

One thing that's very important to them is now, you know, driving while impaired isn't just alcohol.

So they're trying to get, you know, they're trying to get blood tests in there because you can't test for things like marijuana or drugs without doing blood tests.

And so part of the thing is you're also trying to make the penalties worse for people that refuse to take a breath test or refuse to take the blood test.

So those penalties are more- You know, in fact, one thing that they're doing is if you refuse to take a blood test or a breath test, then they could tack something extra on your sentence at the end if you're convicted.

So... those are the kinds of things they're working out.

And it's one of those Senate bills that just takes time to get everybody on the same page and to get it all together.

But it's important because you know, South Carolina's DUI laws have so many different odd little parts to them.

Like, you are required to keep the offender on your dashboard camera or whatever camera that you're using the entire time.

And so if a... you know, someone's drinking and they stumble off, somebody very drunk stumbles off camera, a defense attorney can use that.

And in South Carolina, there's no requirement, especially like for the first offense that it be prosecuted by an attorney, a prosecuting attorney.

It can be, sometimes it's the trooper who pulled the person over or the police officer that ends up going up against the defense attorney.

So these are all things they're trying to trim out and figure out and fix.

So hopefully maybe next week they'll get that together.

Gavin> Yeah, it's giving big tort reform vibes from last session.

But of course this is also building on that liquor liability legislation that got implemented into law.

But then also we did see some toughening of DUI laws in the past, I think 2024, with interlock devices too.

So it's continuing because it is still such a problem.

Jeffrey> You mentioned interlock devices, that's one of the things too if you refuse to take a breathalyzer test, they could put an interlock device on your vehicle, which makes it a lot harder to, you know, end up, that becomes a much more complicated issue of getting places and stuff like that.

But I mean, ultimately, it's one of those things that everyone always talks about needing to fix here.

We'll see if they can get this across the finish line.

Gavin> Yeah, it's a lot of ins and outs, there.

Let's see, Maayan, we're talking about so many different things too.

Another priority of leadership was dealing with SCDOT.

Of course, everyone loves talking about roads and bridges.

It's a lot.

It's a very complicated beast.

Especially when you see just how many roads are maintained by the SCDOT.

I think like 44,000 miles, like the fourth largest system in the country for such a small state.

But of course, everyone complains about the roads and bridges, but there is 7 billion dollars worth of work underway right now in the state, under contract.

But a big issue is funding, right?

Because we saw the gas tax increase in 2017.

But since then we've seen inflation, we've seen labor costs, construction costs going up.

And now we're seeing two bills going through the House and the Senate right now in terms of ways to reform DOT, ways to get more revenue to come in.

The House just dropped their version of a bill.

The Senate dropped theirs, previously.

What do you see going on here?

Is it a good sign to see both chambers working actively together on a similar bill, in a sense, and what that might mean going forward?

> Yeah, it probably is great that both chambers are actively prioritizing legislation, and are slightly on the same page.

Right?

As we head into, kind of the thick of the legislative session.

As you mentioned, everybody talks about roads and it's not just a popular item during an election year.

It is probably the number one complaint that legislators say they get all the time, constituents calling up about some pothole or some road that hasn't been fixed in years.

Both bills seek to try to mitigate some of that.

Quicken the pace of infrastructure construction.

Respond to some of these inflationary costs and some of these labor costs that we've seen.

But additionally to that, congestion, there are so many areas in the state- We talk about how fast growing the state is- I think we're over, what, 5.5 million people right now, which is bonkers.

We're going to be <Slow down> we're going to be over 6, we're going to be over 6 million, 6.6 million by 2040.

Congestion is a massive problem.

It's a massive problem for every single South Carolinian and people who come into the state.

And so this is a very, very large, comprehensive bill that tries in many ways to answer all of these questions.

But alongside talking about electric vehicles raising fees on those.

They are very low among the lowest in the southeast trying to figure out congestion, tolling, kind of those HOV fast pace lanes that you have in some other major cities, including Atlanta.

I think one of the big differences between these two bills is the House wants to make the DOT Secretary a cabinet position, somebody who has to actually answer to the governor.

Of course, with advice and consent of the Senate.

So they would have a role still, but answer to the governor.

The Senate version does not have that.

I do think that probably the House and the Senate are going to find some very similar things within both, that they like.

So I do think that this, not to try and find a, roads pun or construction pun or something <Lay it down> I think they're on, <Green light> I think they're on the same track to possibly to probably become law this year.

There's going to be- Gavin> Not a one way street.

Maayan> Not a one way street.

[laughter] Jeffrey> Are there potholes?

Maayan> There are always going to be potholes and a legislative debate Jeffrey, as you know.

I think some of the contention may come over making the DOT Secretary a cabinet position, but honestly, there may be, there may be a lot of support, that creeps up about that.

This is going to be a similar, I think, debate similar to DUI or tort reform.

It's going to take a long time because, again, roads are something that are personal to every single lawmaker.

They're going to want to talk about their CTCs.

They're going to want to talk about their local roads that they want to become state or vice versa.

So this is going to be a lengthy debate.

It's probably going to happen, it appears, maybe toward the latter end of the session, or at least when both groups- We are going to have some kind of negotiating happening.

I do not see this avoiding that particular process point.

But it is, you know, it's a good sign, I guess, in terms of collaborating.

That both sides do have bills that do have very similar targets and some similar information in it as well.

Gavin> And it brings back some of those debates during the 2017 gas tax debate, 2016 as well.

I mean, looking at that and that, of course, was raising the gas tax which was way more controversial than what we're talking about in terms of some of these fees.

And there was also restructuring involved there, too.

So it seems like every couple of years now we're doing this where everyone's like, "well, maybe we can tweak this and do that, but also how do we get more money in here too?"

So that's we're at right now.

Maayan> And I think it's important to emphasize that the gas tax being raised is not part of this conversation.

We really don't know yet exactly how roads funding is going to go.

The bills that have been proposed by both the House and the Senate do not deal with funding.

That'll start in the House Ways and Means Committee.

We do know that the governor has proposed over a billion dollars to fix roads.

That is probably unlikely to happen.

The House Ways and Means Chairman Bruce Bannister has said, that is probably too much.

Now, we do expect millions and millions of dollars to go to roads.

And certainly that will hopefully compliment some of the legislation that'll be coming across their desks.

Gavin> We have less than five minutes left.

And Joe, I want to talk to you about another controversial bill that we expect to see moving through the House soon.

And that's dealing with, posting the Ten Commandments in every public school classroom.

An 11 by 14 inch display of the Ten Commandments , with the option of displaying some other documents from the founding of our nation.

What's the argument?

What's the drive for this?

Because we've seen similar legislation passed into law around the country that have hit some roadblocks.

Roadblocks... easy.

[laughter] That hasn't stopped us before doing some of these things.

> I guess we're rerouting to the Ten Commandments here.

I mean, it's one of those red primary bills again, Republican primary bills again.

They say it's to help civic and moral education in schools.

I mean, Robby Robbins even said this is not about indoctrination.

So, you know, and even some proponents have called... the Ten Commandments are historical documents.

Will this, be challenged in court if it ever gets, gets there?

Yeah, three other states have similar laws and they're being challenged in court.

And again, the first amendment says we can't institute a particular religion.

This is the, that's what the opponents are gonna be saying on the floor when we get to this debate at some point soon.

Gavin> Again, the House has a very short calendar.

So anything that kind of gets through judiciary is going to be pretty much on deck.

And Jeffrey, with that being said, these are things that are moving.

We have less than three minutes.

But let's talk about some things that aren't moving.

One of them being redistricting.

We heard from House Speaker Murrell Smith earlier this year, echoing what Senate leadership was saying, as well as the governor, that we're not going to do mid-district, mid-cycle redistricting here like we've seen in North Carolina and other states.

The Associated Press has been covering a lot of this, too.

So despite all that, you're going to be hearing different things on the campaign trail from folks who are calling for that.

Do you think it's surprising that we've seen such a pushback to this because of, I guess, what they're seeing in the numbers and the maps?

Jeffrey> I think, yeah, I mean, I'm surprised that there hasn't been, there hasn't been more push against it.

But, it's a simple math problem in some ways.

I mean, people think that South Carolina is ruby red and everything, and it is a very red state.

But, you know, in any particular statewide election, Republicans get maybe 60 percent on a good one, maybe, it's usually a little less than that.

And you start doing the math and making it, putting it together.

It's hard to get a map where you can get seven Republicans elected and feel confident about it every time.

If the Republicans don't have a good candidate, if you happen to have something that happened, like in Charleston this previous cycle, where you had a lot of people move in and suddenly a district that seemed pretty red, Joe Cunningham got elected.

So, I just think ultimately that the Republican leadership in South Carolina has managed to convince people that you can't be greedy.

You know, six-one is very good.

Seven yes, seven-zero would be better, but five-two is worse.

So let's go with six-one, we can guarantee that it's locked in.

That's where we'll be.

Gavin> As I mentioned, we'll have another district probably after the 2030 census.

Maayan 30 seconds, primaries, talk about something that's election related but doesn't look like that's going, closing primaries will go anywhere this year.

Maayan> No, I don't think so.

One, because Republicans cannot agree with Republicans.

I think that's the overarching theme here.

But also, the governor is threatening a veto.

And he was very, very clear.

Again, the governor doesn't make these huge pronouncements about bills very often.

And he was very clear, he would not sign a closed primary bill.

Gavin> That's it.

Again, we'll never say never.

But there's still plenty of months left.

Maayan> Well, so far Brandon Newton says until Republicans agree, you know.

So we'll see if that ever happens.

That's Maayan Schecter with SCETV.

Jeffrey Collins, with Associated Press.

And Joe Bustos with The State newspaper.

Thank you guys so much.

We'll be staying in touch with you throughout the session.

And that's it for us this week for South Carolina ETV, I'm Gavin Jackson.

Be well South Carolina.

♪ ♪ ♪