Judicial Reform Action Page

NEW DASHBOARD A ONE-STOP SHOP TO LEARN ABOUT JUDICIAL REFORM PROGRESS, TAKE ACTION

Things can move quickly at the S.C. Statehouse, change on short notice, or come to a screeching halt without explanation. In any event, it’s our commitment at the South Carolina Policy Council (SCPC) to keep you informed and amplify your voice on key issues.

That’s why we've launched a brand new communications dashboard: the Judicial Reform Action Page. Here, you can find the latest details about the legislative effort to overhaul South Carolina's judicial selection process, updated weekly.

Want to make an impact? Follow the instructions under "Take Action!" to ask your legislators how they plan to support key reforms backed by SCPC and concerned citizens.

Where is reform?

In the Senate

On Mar. 14, the Senate unanimously passed a bill (S.1046) that makes key improvements to South Carolina's judicial selection process. The bill:

Adds appointments by the governor to the Judicial Merit Selection Commission (JMSC), ending the Legislature's monopoly over its membership. However, legislative appointments would still represent a majority of its members.
Requires a person serving on JMSC to resign if a judicial candidate is a member of their family
Allows the JMSC to nominate up to six candidates per open seat (currently limited to three), fostering more competition in judicial races
Requires all public hearings of the JMSC to be livestreamed, making exceptions for executive session
Gives legislators more time to review the list of qualified nominees before those nominees can start seeking pledges
Requires judicial candidates to receive a majority of votes from both the House and Senate to be elected (currently they only need a majority from the joint body)

However, a handful of improvements from an earlier version of S.1046 were amended out before passage. These include:

Banning lawyer-legislators from serving on the JMSC
Increasing the period from one to two years that an outgoing legislator must wait before he/she can be elected as judge
Requiring a full county legislative delegation to vote on magistrate recommendations, rather than just the Senate delegation

The bill now goes to the House.

In the House

On Mar. 7, the House judicial reform package (H.5170) received its first subcommittee hearing.

The bill looks to change the makeup of the Judicial Merit Selection Commission (JMSC), increasing its size from 10 to 13 members and giving the governor five appointments. Why is this important? Currently, appointments to the JMSC are concentrated with just three lawmakers. This welcome change would bring more balance and accountability to the body charged with nominating judicial candidates.

Moreover, a person would not be eligible to serve on the JMSC if they contributed to the campaign of one of the appointing authorities in the most recent election.

In terms of transparency, H.5170 suggests that the JMSC will be required to livestream its meetings. This would let citizens watch the proceedings in real-time and ensure candidates are treated fairly and without bias.

The bill would also fix the holdover loophole for magistrates, which allows these local judges to serve well beyond their legal four-year terms. Under the proposal, if a magistrate serves in holdover status for longer than 14 days, the governor can make a temporary appointment.

The bill awaits its next hearing.

Take action!

We’ve seen slow and steady progress on judicial reform in recent weeks. Now, as we approach the midpoint of the legislative session, it’s time to turn up the pressure.

Make an impact by following these three simple steps.

Use SCPC’s message tool to quickly find and match with your state representatives
Copy and send the following questions relating to judicial reform
If you get a response, please share it with us at [email protected]!

Ask your legislators the following questions:

Do you support legislation that would prohibit lawyer-legislators from serving on the Judicial Merit Selection Commission (JMSC)? If so, what is your plan to see this legislation enacted? If not, please explain your reasons for opposing this change.
Do you support legislation that would allow the governor to appoint a majority of members serving on the JMSC? If so, what is your plan to see this legislation enacted? If not, please explain your reasons for opposing this change.
Do you support legislation that would repeal or raise the three-person nomination cap per open judicial seat, thereby allowing more qualified candidates to seek election by the General Assembly? If so, what is your plan to see this legislation enacted? If not, please explain your reasons for opposing this change.
Do you support legislation that would require the JMSC to livestream its hearings to the public and post the video recordings online for future viewing? If so, what is your plan to see this legislation enacted? If not, please explain your reasons for opposing this change.
Do you support legislation to revise the magistrate selection process? If so, what is your plan to see this legislation enacted? If not, please explain your reasons for opposing this change.
Do you support legislation to close the legal loophole that allows magistrates to serve beyond their statutory four-year terms without reappointment? If so, what is your plan to see this legislation enacted? If not, please explain your reasons for opposing this change.

Sign our judicial reform petition

When it comes to raising awareness, every name and every voice counts! Join the list of South Carolinians demanding change by signing and sharing our judicial reform petition. Not only does this show legislators that citizens are demanding action, but it’s also a great way to quickly spread the word and build grassroots support.

We are getting close to our goal of 500 signatures! Sign the petition today and help us cross this important milestone. Your support is crucial as reformative bills face obstacles and resistance at the Statehouse.

Why is reform needed?

In South Carolina, one branch of government – the Legislature – unilaterally controls the selection of judges to five of nine courts: the state Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Administrative Law Court, circuit courts, and family courts. This uneven system violates the basic principle of separation of powers.
There are no rules against lawyer-legislators practicing before judges they have supported in judicial elections. Moreover, there are no rules against lawyer-legislators who serve on the Judicial Merit Selection Commission (JMSC) from practicing before judges nominated by the commission.
These circumstances undermine judicial independence and enable a system of abuse and favoritism. At a committee hearing last year, First Circuit Solicitor David Pascoe described a conversation he had with state senator and attorney Dick Harpootlian, where Harpootlian explained, “Yes, lawyer-legislators get preferential treatment. It’s not a secret.” Pascoe bluntly described the JMSC process as “rigged.”
Hearings conducted by the JMSC to screen and evaluate judicial candidates are not livestreamed, making it nearly impossible to follow the proceedings without attending in person. This is not feasible for most South Carolinians, especially those outside of Columbia. (However, after years of pressure by SCPC and allies calling for transparency, the commission for the first time uploaded video of its fall 2023 meetings on Jan. 18, 2024.)
The selection of local magistrates, who play a crucial role in our legal system by handing minor criminal and civil cases among other responsibilities, is often mainly controlled by just one or two state senators. Plus, a loophole in the law allows them to serve for years beyond their statutory four-year terms without reappointment.
The public is demanding reform. Eighty-eight percent of those who took SCPC’s 2023 issues survey said they strongly disapprove or disapprove of letting-lawyer lawmaker determine our nominees for judicial office, while a whopping 98% said they strongly agreed or agreed that lawyer-lawmakers should not present cases in front of judges they helped put on the bench.