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 as of May 10?

After a long journey through the Statehouse, a bill (S.1046) offering much-needed improvements to South Carolina's judicial selection process is nearing passage. The bill bounced between the House and Senate in the final week of the regular session, with each side insisting on its version of the bill. There are strong qualities in both versions, each delivering on some (though not all) of SCPC's recommended reforms, but they share some important differences.

A conference committee has been appointed – comprised of Reps. Weston Newton, Micah Caskey and Leon Stavrinakis; and Sens. Luke Rankin, Gerald Malloy and Shane Massey – to assemble a compromise bill. We encourage the committee to craft a final package that incorporates the strongest elements of the two proposals. To stay up to speed, here are summaries of the House and Senate versions of S.1046:

Senate bill highlights

Expands the Judicial Merit Selection Commission (JMSC) to 12 members and revises its appointment structure. Appointments would be made by the governor (four members), the House speaker (four members), the Senate Judiciary chairman (two members), and the Senate president (two members). This would end lawmakers' monopoly over JMSC membership, though they would retain two-thirds of the appointments.
Removes the requirement that most JMSC members must be sitting lawmakers. (However, it is very likely that legislative appointments would continue to be filled by lawmakers.)
Establishes a single four-year term limit for JMSC members; however, members could be reappointed after rotating off the commission.
Requires a person serving on JMSC to resign if a judicial candidate is a member of their family.
Requires all public hearings of the JMSC to be livestreamed, making exceptions for executive session.
Allows the JMSC to nominate up to six candidates per open seat (currently limited to three), fostering more competition in judicial races.
Reports provided by the JMSC to lawmakers must include an explanation for all candidates found not qualified, providing "particular reasons" for their determinations.
Gives legislators at least 12 days to review the list of qualified nominees before those nominees can start seeking pledges for votes (current law provides a minimum of 48 hours.)
Strengthens ethics rules regarding lawmakers' ability to pressure nominees to withdraw.
Requires judicial candidates to receive a majority of votes from both the House and Senate to be elected (under current law, they need only a majority of votes from the joint body.)
Establishes procedures for subsequent elections if a candidate does not obtain enough votes in the first round.
Notably, the Senate version of S.1046 makes no changes to the magistrate selection or retention process, for which it loses major points.

House bill highlights

Expands the Judicial Merit Selection Commission (JMSC) to 13 members and revises its appointment structure. Appointments would be made by the governor (five members), the House speaker (four members), the Senate Judiciary chairman (two members), and the Senate president (two members). This would end lawmakers' monopoly over JMSC membership, though they would retain more than three-fifths of the appointments.
Establishes a rule limiting JMSC members to serving no more than two consecutive two-year terms; however, it seems members could cycle off the commission and come back.
Makes a person ineligible to serve on the JMSC if they individually contributed to the campaign of an appointing authority in the most recent election.
Does not include a rule requiring a commissioner to resign if a judicial candidate is a member of their family, marking an important distinction from the Senate bill.
Authorizes the JMSC to promulgate rules for livestreaming its meetings, but does not make livestreaming a requirement.
Says that all candidates found qualified by the JMSC must be advanced to the General Assembly for consideration; repeals the three-person cap. Like the Senate bill, this would foster more competition in judicial races.
Does not include a provision requiring the JMSC to provide explanations for candidates it finds not qualified, marking an importation distinction from the Senate bill.
Prohibits judicial candidates from seeking vote pledges from lawmakers until one week before the election.
Does not include a provision requiring judicial candidates to receive a majority of votes from both the House and Senate to be elected, marking an important distinction from the Senate bill.
Establishes a Magistrate Review Subcommittee (comprised of a portion of JMSC members) to evaluate magistrate candidates prior to their appointment by the governor.
Addresses the magistrate holdover loophole, a longstanding issue that allows magistrates to serve beyond the expiration of their statutory terms, sometimes for years. Under the bill, if a magistrate serves in holdover status for more than 14 days, the governor can make a temporary appointment until the Senate provides advice and consent for a permanent appointment.
Increases the criminal and civil jurisdiction of magistrates (civil case limit is raised from $7,500 to $25,000; criminal case limit is raised from fines of $500 to $25,000, and penalties of 30 days to one year in jail.)

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 make appointments to the JMSC, ending the Legislature's monopoly over its membership? 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.