Focus on judicial selections
Panel to examine election by legislators
Panel to examine election by legislators
Wade Spees
The Post and Courier
Judge Daniel Pieper of Hanahan will take his seat on the South Carolina Court of Appeals in November. After serving on the Ninth Judicial Circuit, Pieper was elected by the Legislature earlier this year to the higher court. The election process, however, is under fire by some lawmakers who believe it’s wrought with political favoritism and illegal politicking. Pieper also expressed concern about the process. Here, he hears motions in the Charleston Judicial Center courtroom on Wednesday.
The Post and Courier
COLUMBIA — South Carolina is one of two states in which lawmakers elect judges.
Critics of the system say the practice can lead to political activism on the bench or make it possible for lawmakers to hand out judgeships to friends and supporters.
Proponents say South Carolina and Virginia have it right.
They argue that legislative elections, unlike public ones, don't require costly campaigns and leave little room for special interests or trial lawyers to win favor with judges through cash contributions. What's more, supporters argue, judicial candidates don't run on platforms, rendering public elections essentially meaningless.
Opponents argue that important judgeships in the state are contingent on relationships and behind-the-scenes deals, possibly on future constitutional rulings.
Senate President Pro Tem Glenn McConnell, R-Charleston, called for a Senate study committee to convene today to begin evaluating the process and potential alternatives, including public elections. Set to testify are trial lawyers, members of the defense bar and state Chief Justice Jean Toal.
The last round of judicial elections left many thinking it was time for reform. In May, the Legislature, among other judicial elections, voted to seat a new state Supreme Court justice and sent Circuit Judge Daniel Pieper of Hanahan to the Appeals Court.
For the first time in a decade, South Carolina legislators will take a close look at the process, as 18 judicial seats are open, including a position on the Supreme Court held by Justice James E. Moore, who is scheduled to retire.
Accusations in the last round, surfacing publicly almost exclusively from senators, point to the process as becoming corrupted, critics say, with some saying elections are won even before a screening panel nominates candidates.
Some claimed horse trading, or swapping votes, went on in the race to elect Justice Don Beatty of Spartanburg to the Supreme Court.
Malia Reddick, director of research and programs at the American Judicature Society, will testify today and offer information about judicial elections across the country. The organization is a nonprofit, nonpartisan group created in 1913 to study judicial branch issues.
The organization advocates a merit selection process for electing judges that involves a group of lawyers and others to screen and nominate applicants for judgeships. Next, a short list of qualified candidates would be sent to the state's governor to make the appointment. When the term ends, voters would be asked whether that judge should remain in office.
Although South Carolina runs its judicial applicants through a merit selection commission made up of six legislators and four residents, the society does not consider it merit selection, Reddick said, because legislators are involved in the screening and election.
However, many lawmakers view the creation of the merit selection commission in 1997 as the needed reform. According to the judicature society, in the mid-1990s all of the state's Supreme Court justices and more than half of its Circuit Court judges were former legislators themselves.
"I bet 98 percent of the citizens of South Carolina have no earthly idea of how we elect judges," said Sen. Robert Ford, a member of the study committee and perhaps the Legislature's most vocal critic of the system. He wants publicly-funded popular judicial elections.
Sen. Larry Martin, R-Pickens, who will lead the committee, admitted that he, too, has biases. "I think the integrity of the system has been pretty strong," Martin said. "I think we've had unquestionable integrity and scholarship and independence.
E-mail this story 
Printer-friendly version
Notice about comments:
The Post and Courier is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. The Post and Courier does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our Web site.
Full terms and conditions can be read here.
Comments
This article has 10 comment(s)
Posted by lillycollette on September 17, 2007 at 6:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What an interesting article! Accusations are being made by some member(s) of the legislature that “the judicial merit selection process is -- ‘becoming’ -- corrupted. … [S]ome saying elections are won even before a screening panel nominates candidates. Some claimed horse trading, or swapping votes, went on …”
Is this just political “sour grapes” or has the anonymous legislator(s) actually presented information to the state grand jury?
See, S.C. Code § 14-7-1610(B) The General Assembly finds that there is a need to enhance the grand jury system to improve the ability of the State to detect and eliminate public corruption. … http://www.scstatehouse.net/code/t14c007...
It’s not all that difficult to find out how judges are elected in South Carolina just start looking at http://www.scstatehouse.net/html-pages/j....
The real issue is why is the legislature is not adhering to what is found there (i.e., elections are won even before a screening panel nominates candidates. … horse trading, or swapping votes, went on …) Aside from the allegations in this article the transcripts of some of these hearings prove that some members of the legislature have dropped the ball in appointing judges.
It would seem like the time for study committees has past and the time for grand jury investigation has arrived.
Posted by mggoose2000 on September 17, 2007 at 6:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yep!, it's time! Want to experience the result of judges being appointed, not elected? Have a traffic ticket? Wait until you see the "kangaroo court" you'll attend if you want to have your fine and points reduced! God help you if you are ever involved in a divorce; the judges differ so badly and are terribly inept at keeping current from one judges' decison to the others'. Then, watch them let the DUI offender off with "public service" or the drug dealer with "probation". And how about the "pervert or child molester"? Counseling and 30 days for ruining some childs life?
When the public have a say in "who" sits on the bench, then and only then, will we have better sentencing and less influence from the interested parties attorneys and families. Bribery and influential pressure have been present in our courts for decades. Let us decide who deserves to sit "in judgement" of our transgressions, not some special interest or the almighty dollar.
Posted by bigwhip on September 17, 2007 at 7:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The election of judges by the electorate is a long time needed move AND with term limits AND not be used to enter the state retirement system.Also, no one can run for a judgeship until two years after serving in the legislature.Columbia......the reason why SC ranks at the bottom in so many categories.
Posted by lillycollette on September 17, 2007 at 8 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If you have any illusions about constitutional / civil rights or have any belief in the law at all just go to family court and they will clear up all your delusions very quickly.
Posted by lillycollette on September 17, 2007 at 8:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I do like the idea of term limits. With that there would be little ground for the chronic complaining about lack of diversity on the bench. Keep them rotating and actually use some of the overabunadance of qualified people we have who can fill these positions.
Posted by MinoritySouth on September 17, 2007 at 10:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sounds like there is very little dissonance and I am chiming in with you guys.. You are absolutely right. I also think to prevent special interest lawyers and the like from funding the campaigns it should be totally public funded (It is well worth the benefits) or have a reasonable cap for the amount of funds that can be raised for the campaign.
Posted by lillycollette on September 17, 2007 at 12:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hello!
Anonymous legislators have already attested to the real problem being legislative abuse of the judicial merit selection process: “[E]lections are won even before a screening panel nominates candidates. Some claimed horse trading, or swapping votes, went on in the race …”
What can a study committee bring to the table that will make this legislature start towing the line? What a pathetic charade.
The American Judicature Society should refuse to participate in this and make a referral to The Chicago Crime Commission. They have far more experience in what is really going on here.
Posted by MinoritySouth on September 17, 2007 at 3:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes, they should probably be investigated, I agree but what I am trying to say is, a true fix would be to consider allowing the public to vote the judges in. I know that is another can of worms but at least you as an individual would have your "say" in who sits on the bench. The campaigns should be publically funded or should have a defined funding cap to level the playing field if privately funded. A cap that is well within the reach of the average person running for a seat.
Posted by 1254343 on September 18, 2007 at 3:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
In April 2005 Judge Cate, Charleston, told me "You don't have a Constitutional Right" in her courtroom. I said "I don't have a Constitutional Right?" She said "You have to hire an attorney to have them explain to you what family court is all about." Then in April 2006, Judge Garfinkel, Charleston, would not let me represent myself as attorney, and when I cliamed "Sui Juris" (the last sentence of the SC Constitution) he found me in contempt and had me jailed. The hearing never even took place. These are just two examples of the dirty judges in SC. Another dirty Judge, Judge Turbeville signed a court order that was the opposite of what he said in court. I have been able to get all three the transcripts (so none of this is defamatory; it is proven truth), despite Judge Cate's efforts to erase the hearing from he docket (she put her orders under another judge, Judge Bridges, after I sent her three letters asking her why I don't have Constitution Rights. My whole case is going to trial in Federal Court. Dirty judges can't hide behind immunity when they break the law. No one is above the law. I reported all three judges to the State Judicial Review Committee and received a letter back stating that I would need to address my issues in a civil court because they found no basis of wrondoing. The judges protect the judges.
Posted by lillycollette on October 13, 2007 at 3:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Given the level of impact the judiciary has on the lives of our citizens and the widespread abuse of drugs across socioeconomic lines, there is NO EXCUSE for failing to require random drug testing of every member of the S.C. judiciary.