Where SC’s Attorney General candidates stand on judicial reform

A recent poll from the South Carolina Policy Council found that 58% of voters support reforming the Judicial Merit Selection Commission (JMSC). Currently, Legislators exert significant influence over the selection process due to their outsized control of the JMSC. 

A bill making its way through the legislature would give the governor control over all 12 members of the JMSC and thus judicial nominations, while the legislature would still confirm. This more closely mimics the federal model of president nominates and legislature approves. 

We sat down with the three candidates who have officially filed to run for South Carolina Attorney General to ask what they think about JMSC reform. 

Q: Lawmakers are currently considering a bill that would allow the governor to appoint all 12 seats on the JMSC to avoid conflicts of interest. Do you agree with this proposal? 

8th Circuit Solicitor David Stumbo:  

“I do. It's better—it's vastly better than what we have now—and it's because the governor, at that point, would be able to at least appoint the members that screen the candidates which will eventually be in front of the legislature.  

What I would like to see ultimately in our state—and if this bill passes, I think it's an improvement—[is for us] to implement a model that is similar to what we see in Washington. […] But to do that, we would have to get a constitutional amendment in front of the voters because the JMSC was baked into the constitution in the 1990’s. I would love to see us revisit that.  

I think the voters of our state are ready for a model that they're used to […]. The only difference that I would like to see with the federal model is that I don't think we need lifetime appointments like those on the federal bench. I think every six years they should come back and have the confirmation process again.” 

1st Circuit Solicitor David Pascoe:  

“Right after the Statehouse corruption probe, one of the first things I did was I started speaking across this state about the need for ‘judicial reform.’ That was me that brought that up on January 6, 2022, at the Greenville Republican Party meeting in front of three to four hundred people.  

I called for judicial reform, and I brought receipts telling everyone why we needed judicial reform: the preferential treatment that lawyer legislators get in courtrooms across the state […]. I was calling for one thing, and I said it is going to be easy to do because it only takes a statute, not constitutional change. Remove the legislators from the JMSC.  

And now, finally—over four years later—the House has passed a bill that does exactly that. So, I think it's a game changer. I think it's a big deal to at least start the initial step of having a better process in how we pick our judges and restoring confidence in our judiciary.” 

State Senator Stephen Goldfinch:  

“If the question is ‘do we have a problem,’ I’m not sure that we do. If the question is, ‘do we have a perception of a problem,’ the answer is absolutely yes, right? And so, I have never personally seen favoritism on the bench—I just haven't seen it.  

Now, if a citizen has seen it, that matters. So, I've also never been given a suitcase of cash, right? Or car keys to a new Cadillac. But that doesn't mean that it's never happened.  

So, have I ever seen the conflict of interest? No, I've never personally seen it, but perception matters because the people that elect us into office [need to] have confidence in their institutions.  

They have to have confidence, and in my opinion, the most important institution to have confidence in is our judiciary, more so than the legislature. I mean, you can beat up on the legislature all day long because you can send them home, but the judges, if you don't have confidence in your judiciary, you got a real problem.” 

Click here to watch the full interviews and hear from the candidates on a wide range of topics important to voters.