South Carolina’s Judicial Merit Selection Commission (JMSC) reviews applications of qualified candidates for state judgeships, three of whom will be selected. The JMSC is comprised of 10 individuals; five selected by the Speaker of the House, three selected by the Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman, and two selected by the Senate President. Once applicants are selected they lobby members of both the House and the Senate who ultimately vote on them.
Typically, the JMSC is made up of attorneys. One would think that would be good, since lawyers are familiar with the judicial process and have experiences with judges, good and bad, etc. However, as practicing attorneys, these same commission members may well have to appear before the same judges they select.
The House and Senate are full of attorneys. In any other vote a member would recuse themselves if there was potential for conflict of interest. But not with judges. What bigger conflict of interest is there? In reality, the House elects judges since there are 124 members of the House and only 46 members of the Senate. Thus, the weight of voting falls in favor of the larger chamber. The make up of the JMSC will change in 2025 but the voting will not.
An article on the South Carolina Daily Gazette website last year noted:
The major problem at present is the issue of six lawyer-legislators having majority control over the 10-member Judicial Merit Selection Commission and the fact that, according to an article in The Post and Courier on Jan. 4, 2023 — based on data from the National Conference of State Legislators — some 27% of South Carolina representatives and 46% of senators are attorneys. (The national average of lawyer-legislators is 14%.) Perhaps one reason lawyers run for the Legislature is to be able to pick the judges they practice before.
I don’t believe partisan elections would be the right avenue because the judge with the most influence or connections could (and d0) “network” their way onto the bench. That might be OK for a political position, but not for a judge. And, yes, money could also be a player. Contributions to a legislator’s election campaign could (if such things happen!) give a judicial applicant an edge be such a donation from the applicant or law partner or, whomever. IF such would happen. Of course, I’m not saying it does. Never in South Carolina!
Rather, I believe judges should be appointed by the Governor with advise and consent of a select panel that does not consist of any legislative member that could be in a position to appear before that judge.
Palmetto Promise stated it very well:
Horse-trading in the legislature can lead to an inferior candidate being put on a bench simply because it is that region/gender/demographic’s “turn.” “Help me get a Spartanburg judge on the Supreme Court and I will help you get an Horry judge (and/or your former law partner) on the Court of Appeals.” Sometimes a judge is confirmed just because they were the “runner up” the last time they stood for election. Actual candidate quality and philosophy too often takes a backseat to these ancillary considerations.”
Law enforcement officers put their lives in danger everyday to get the criminals off the street only to see them back on the street in less than a day. Go to Department of Juvenile Justice and you will see juveniles that have run away from home or shoplift behind bars when they just turned loose a rapist or suspected murderer or someone with a record that’s pages long. You have women in jail for writing bad checks to buy groceries but the guy that threaten to kill them is out in two hours.
We have too many judges that have stopped protecting the public from criminals who commit crimes but feel they have an obligation to defense attorneys, some of whom are the very legislators (or partners of legislators) who put them on the bench. South Carolina citizens need to be aware that there is an means to report judicial misconduct and incompetence and such complaints should be made easier to submit.
Terms should be staggered and no judge appointed for life. In South Carolina the age of retirement for a judge is 72, but that could be increased as long as the terms for review are four to six years. Even with this age 72 requirement the Chief Justice can appoint retired judges to serve on the bench, voiding the age restrictions. That in fact has been the case lately.
Talk to your legislators and tell them to change the system. One day your fate or that of a friend, family member or someone in your community could be in the hands of a judge whose loyalty may very well be not to justice, but to whomever gave her/him the robe.
WHILE I BREATHE 