Ground-breaking Deal on Judicial Selection Reforms Brokered between SC House, Senate
In a significant development, the leadership of the South Carolina House and Senate have arrived at an agreement to enact considerable reforms regarding how their respective legislatures appoint judges. The agreement, the result of months of heated debate and negotiation, marks the accomplishment of a key goal for this legislative season.
What are the Reforms?
The transformed procedures, which have been avidly contested and refined over the past year, make a near-complete combination of two distinct versions of the bill initially brought forward by the House and Senate.
The enacted reforms will increase the size of the Judicial Merit Selection Commission, the legislative body responsible for choosing judge candidates, from 10 to 12, four of whom will be appointed by the governor. A maximum of two two-term limits will be set for appointees to the commission, disallowing members from serving if a relative is being considered for appointment. Moreover, the period for legislative members and the public to review a candidate’s qualifications will be extended, and the pool of prospective applicants for the seat will be expanded.
Reactions to the Reforms
While the deal has been commended by key lawmakers in both the House and Senate, it has left critics desiring more. They argue that the reforms fall short of placing substantial restraints on ‘lawyer-legislators’ to elect judges. The pave for members to serve in the future isn’t entirely closed by the newly enforced term limits given by the bill. Moreover, the bill chose not to address issues linked to the state’s selection process for magistrates, the county-level judges who draw the most criticism from reform advocates and are largely appointed by the Senate.
Why Not Include Magistrates?
The House representatives explained on June 26 that this omission was largely due to the Senate’s reluctance to implement any reforms relating to these judges until next year at the earliest.
The Senate Majority Leader, representing Edgefield, who played a key role in bringing the two chambers to an agreement, expressed satisfaction with the deal, particularly regarding the manner in which it addressed term limits. The aim, he suggested, was to infuse fresh ideas and perspectives into the process of vetting judicial candidates. He added that this measure will curb possible situations where members of the Judicial Merit Selection Commission might hold grudges and seek revenge on potential candidates.
What’s Next?
The bill now heads to the Governor’s desk. It is widely expected that he will sign the measure into law, adding a new chapter to the state’s judicial history.
