South Carolina legislators are again considering changes to how the state picks its judges. The photo shows state Supreme Court Justice John Kittredge being questioned by the Judicial Merit Selection Commission on Nov. 6, 2023, about becoming the next chief justice. The panel's chairman (left) is Rep. Micah Caskey, R-West Columbia. The panel's vice-chairman (right) is Senate Judiciary Chairman Luke Rankin, R-Myrtle Beach. (File photo by Mary Ann Chastain/Special to the SC Daily Gazette)
COLUMBIA — South Carolina legislators are again considering changes to how the state vets its judges, this time giving the governor total control of the panel that screens them.
Under the proposal backed by House GOP leadership, the governor would appoint all 12 members of the Judicial Merit Selection Commission — eight lawyers and four members of law enforcement. None could be legislators.
A House panel voted 4-1 Thursday to advance the legislation to the full Judiciary Committee.
In addition to booting the screening panel’s six legislators, the proposal would also prevent the appointment of any immediate family members of legislators. Former legislators would have to be out of office for two years before they or their family — specifically, their spouses, children and siblings — could apply for a seat on the panel.
Rom Reddy is pushing the measure, a year after founding DOGE SC, a political action committee borrowing its name from the Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency.
The Isle of Palms millionaire, who made headlines for suing the state after being told to remove an illegal seawall built to protect his beachfront home, began circulating the proposal in the fall ahead of the regular legislative session.
The Legislature already tweaked the selection system in 2024. Those changes, which went into effect in July, gave the governor a seat at the table for the first time.
Governor signs law adjusting how SC picks its judges but calls for more ‘meaningful’ reform
The new proposal would give the state’s chief executive control over all the seats.
“Someone will have influence on this panel,” said Rep. Spencer Wetmore. “All I’m hearing is that we want to switch who has the influence to be the governor’s cronies.”
The Folly Beach Democrat was the only member to vote against the bill. She also pointed out that two of the people who have pushed for these changes — Attorney General Alan Wilson and U.S. Rep. Ralph Norman of South Carolina’s 5th District — are now running for governor.
Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey, speaking to reporters in November, also expressed skepticism about the proposal.
“Everybody’s got an agenda,” the Edgefield Republican said. “Right now, we have eight competing agendas. This proposal would have us have one agenda in the selection process. And I think that’s just something everybody needs to understand. Is that what you want? Does that better the process?”
The Legislature’s last law change already removed some of what was viewed as undue influence from the panel by instituting term limits and forwarding to the General Assembly more qualified candidates to choose from.
South Carolina is among two states where the Legislature elects most judges.
Previously, the panel could send a maximum of three choices, meaning some qualified candidates were left out of the final election by a joint assembly.
The change doubled that number to six qualified candidates.
None of this year’s judicial races had more than six candidates, so nearly all will go to a vote.
The screening panel found three candidates — two seeking a newly created Family Court seat and one in a crowded race for a seat on the state’s Administrative Law Court — unqualified. The reasons for those candidates’ dismissals have yet to be made public.
Massey said he’s open to further debate on the matter, but he’d first like to see how this year’s judicial elections go. The floor votes are scheduled for March 4.
“I’m open to other changes,” he said. “I’m just not convinced that this proposal fixes a real problem.”
In a rare contest for re-election, SC Supreme Court justice defends opinions on state abortion law
Beyond the makeup of the board, the proposal also strips out language in existing law encouraging the panel to consider racial and gender diversity within the judiciary when screening candidates.
The bill would not only remove a line inserted into state law in 1996 but would tell members not to consider “race, gender, sex, sexual preference, color, religion, national origin … or any diversity, equity, and inclusion criteria … at any time, for any reason.”
Only one organization, the state chapter of the League of Women Voters, testified on the bill.
Lynn Teague, who represents the league at the Statehouse, said the organization supports keeping legislators off the panel as a way to balance power between the branches of government. But the league would still like to see the General Assembly have some voice in who sits on that panel.
Teague said the league also is opposed to the new anti-DEI language.
“I know this a very hot-button cultural issue right now, but I’ve also heard the chief justice of our state Supreme Court comment that we need a judiciary that looks more like South Carolina,” she said.
Of the 125 full-time judges across South Carolina’s Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Circuit Court and Family Court, 48 judges are women — including 14 women of color. At least seven male judges are from a racial minority, including one Hispanic man.
“Could we find ourselves in a position where our state is moving backwards towards the days of when a minority or a woman had an almost impossible time of getting to the bench?” asked Rep. Justin Bamberg, D-Bamberg, who nevertheless voted for the bill.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
