Justices hear Segars-Andrews case

COLUMBIA -- The South Carolina Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday over whether a legislative screening committee acted constitutionally last year when it found a family court judge unqualified to seek re-election.

That was the narrow issue in the case of Family Court Judge Charlie Segars-Andrews of Charleston. She was petitioning the high court to vacate the commission's finding.

The broader issue, and the reason why the court's tiny courtroom was packed for two hours, was whether General Assembly politicians can find an otherwise qualified judge "unqualified," forcing him or her from the bench, thus intimidating other judges.

"Aren't judges sidestepping questions now that may be political hot potatoes?" asked Justice Kaye Hearn at one point.

Hearn's question underscored the way state judges are chosen in South Carolina. The state's 46 senators and 124 representatives vote for judges.

And the only candidates the lawmakers can vote for must be qualified by a Judicial Merit Screening Commission -- made up mostly of lawmakers.

In December, that commission found Segars-Andrews, 53, "not qualified" to go before the General Assembly for re-election to the post she's held since 1993. Normally, that finding would have ended her candidacy.

But over the years, Segars-Andrews has proved herself competent and popular, according to court papers. Her supporters include hundreds of lawyers and citizens who spoke out, saying her disqualification was an attack on an independent judiciary.

Her real offense, supporters argued, was to offend powerful politicians in the General Assembly with a ruling in one case in which she supposedly committed an ethical violation. But the incident was investigated and found baseless by two legal bodies.

She and supporters filed suit, winning a hearing before the Supreme Court without going through lower courts.

"An independent judiciary is the cornerstone of a free society," Charleston civil rights lawyer Armand Derfner, representing Segars-Andrews., told justices Tuesday. He argued that having lawmakers on the screening commission who later vote to elect a judge is unconstitutional dual-office holding.

Opposing Derfner, lawyer Michael Hitchcock argued that it is constitutional for lawmakers to serve on the commission, and the commission has wide latitude to find a judicial candidate unqualified.

In briefs, Hitchcock also argued that Segars-Andrews' conduct didn't need to have a formal finding of an ethics violation to be considered by the screening commission as grounds to disqualify her.

The case had extra drama because the five members of the state Supreme Court are elected by the General Assembly, and they may be mindful that a negative decision might not be popular with the politicians whose votes they need to keep their jobs, said Robert Bockman, a USC School of Law adjunct professor who teaches appellate advocacy. He was in the courtroom.

During much of Tuesday's arguments, House Speaker Bobby Harrell sat in the front row of the courtroom. Meanwhile, the five justices peppered lawyers with questions. They wound up giving lawyers almost two hours to argue their cases, twice as much time as scheduled.

The court's options include finding unconstitutional the method by which judges are chosen or upholding the commission's "not qualified" finding.

There was no word on when the court might rule. Segars-Andrews is serving out her term, which expires on June 30.