SC Legislatures reaches compromise tweaking how it selects judges

Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey, center, huddles with Rep. Leon Stavrinakis, D-Charleston, left, and Rep. Weston Newton, R-Bluffton, right, Wednesday, June 26, 2024, to discuss a compromise over changes to how the Legislature elects judges in South Carolina. (Jessica Holdman/SC Daily Gazette)

COLUMBIA — The South Carolina Legislature reached a final-hour compromise on changes to how it picks judges in the state, giving the governor some input but still holding tight to legislative control.

The unanimous votes Wednesday in the House and Senate followed several hours of side-room negotiations while most legislators were in chambers passing a state budget or listening to farewell speeches from incumbents who aren’t returning next year.

The deal tweaks the judicial selection process but stops short of comprehensive changes some reform advocates wanted.

Many, including the attorney general and solicitors of both parties, say the system gives the Legislature too much power over judges, particularly lawyer-legislators who appear before the judges they put on the bench.

Rather than barring them, the compromise actually allows for the possibility of more lawyer-legislators on the panel. But it adds rules ensuring judges aren’t screened by the same legislators term after term.

South Carolina is among two states where the Legislature elects most judges.

The process involves the Judicial Merit Selection Commission screening applicants and forwarding the names of three candidates deemed qualified to the entire Legislature for a vote. Of the panel’s 10 current members, six are legislators who are also lawyers. The other four are lawyers appointed by legislators.

The deal adds two people to the panel, making it 12. Eight of them could be legislators.

The governor would, for the first time, get appointments. He will appoint four lawyers who have been practicing for at least a decade, the same years of service required to run for a judgeship.

The House and Senate would each get four appointments: Four made by the House speaker, two by the Senate president and two by the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman.

It does not bar legislators who are lawyers from serving on the panel but does term-limit them.

Legislators can stay on for four years — two consecutive two-year terms — but then must come off the panel for a term before returning, meaning judges won’t be screened for election and re-election by the same members.

Aside from the current chairman and vice chairman, any member that has been on the panel for more than four years isn’t eligible for re-appointment right away. That means all but three of the current panelists will have to vacate their seats for at least two years.

The legislation also requires a commissioner to resign if they have an immediate family member or in-law seeking a judgeship. And anyone seeking a spot on the screening panel can’t have made a campaign donation to the legislative leader appointing them.

Finally, it doubles the number of qualified judicial candidates that can be forwarded to the General Assembly for a vote. The maximum would be six instead of three.

The compromise did not address House-proposed changes to the appointment and authority of magistrates.

“Our Senate colleagues were not interested in magistrate reform,” said Rep. Weston Newton, R-Bluffton. “And we did not want to miss the opportunity to have meaningful reform in the way we elect and select judges in the state over that issue.”

Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey acknowledged senators did not want to change how magistrates are selected.

The county-level judges — most of whom aren’t attorneys — are technically appointed by the governor. But they’re actually chosen by their local senators, who control when and if they’re replaced. The House plays no role in magistrate selections.

Massey, R-Edgefield, said it’s possible that senators would agree to changing that system at some point — an idea he personally supports.

“There are some senators who are very protective of that,” said Massey, an attorney. “It suits me to give it up completely. They’re a pain in my butt. But that is something that will be talked about in the future. Especially if we continue to have problems in that area, there will be more conversations.”

SC Daily Gazett Editor Seanna Adcox contributed to this report.

The post SC Legislatures reaches compromise tweaking how it selects judges appeared first on SC Daily Gazette.