Justices side with panel

The S.C. Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the state's judicial screening panel and its decision to find 9th Circuit Family Court Judge F.P. "Charlie" Segars-Andrews unqualified to continue to serve.

Tuesday's ruling means she will leave when her current judicial appointment ends June 30.

It also means that state lawmakers won't have to scramble this spring to revise their system for evaluating the qualifications of those seeking a judicial appointment.

Lawmakers elect judges in South Carolina -- but only after the S.C. Judicial Merit Selection Commission determines they are qualified for the job.

Charleston attorney Armand Derfner, who represented Segars-Andrews in the case, said the decision is much more than a loss for one judge.

"What is troublesome here is that a dedicated, outstanding judge is being driven out of office because of political whim," he said. "When fine public servants -- especially judges -- are treated like that, we have a serious problem."

Derfner said Segars-Andrews would have no comment.

State Senate President Pro Tem Glenn McConnell, who served as chairman of the commission as it screened Segars-Andrews and voted against her, said the ruling was a sound one.

"The constitution makes it very clear that the power to elect judges and select them lies in the Legislature," he said.

McConnell, R-Charleston, also called it a victory for higher standards for state judges. "This is a green light to us that we can have higher standards and that we can impose those higher standards," he said. "Judges in the family court, they're judge and jury there. A judge in the family court has broad discretion. And there is no assurance in South Carolina that you're going to be a judge for life."

Segars-Andrews, who has presided over family court cases for 16 years, sued the state of South Carolina, the Judicial Merit Selection Commission, McConnell, House Speaker Bobby Harrell and Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case without having it tried in a lower court first.

She claimed the commission, which consists of six state lawmakers and other legal experts, violated the state's dual-office- holding provision and the state's separation of powers.

Her suit also claimed the commission's structure compromised the judiciary's independence, which the Supreme Court's ruling acknowledged was "the elephant in the room."

However, the ruling also said that absent any unconstitutional action by the commission, the court could not intervene in political determinations.

"To judicially intervene in the purely political determination of the JMSC (Judicial Merit Selection Commission) would itself violate separation of powers," the ruling said.

Last fall, the commission found the judge unqualified because of her handling of a Clarendon County divorce case. The husband, William Simpson Jr., brought the case to the commission's attention.

Segars-Andrews did not recuse herself from it after she learned that her husband, Mount Pleasant lawyer Mark Andrews, had shared in a large settlement with the lawyer representing Simpson's wife.

Many Charleston lawyers and other legal observers rallied to her defense, but the commission's vote finding her unqualified changed only from 9-1 to 7-3.

The judge's supporters noted that her handling of that case was upheld by the S.C. Court of Appeals and by the state's judicial discipline commission.

Marie-Louise Ramsdale, a Charleston lawyer who practices family law, said she was saddened to hear the ruling.

"One case out of thousands is no reason to remove a judge, especially when she has twice been found to have committed no wrong. This case epitomizes politics at its worst," she said.

Charleston lawyer Robert Rosen said Tuesday "is a tragic day for the independence of the judiciary."

"I understand the Supreme Court did what it thought was right, but it doesn't change the fact that every judge in the state knows -- and they've said that they know -- that they are at the mercy of powerful disgruntled litigants and powerful members of the General Assembly," he added.

The S.C. League of Women Voters and the state chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers filed briefs in support of Segars-Andrews.

McConnell said the screening commission does not retry cases, but it does give people a chance to be heard and sifts out valid complaints among disgruntled litigants.

"One of the good things to come out of this is, I think, people in South Carolina now know they can come appear and have their complaints heard," he said.

McConnell said the Judicial Merit Selection Commission will resume its work as soon as possible. That work had been on hold, pending this court case.

However, it's unclear if the commission will screen any candidates for the Family Court judgeship held by Segars-Andrews before this fall.

Yvonne Wenger contributed to this report. Reach Robert Behre at 937-5771 or rbehre@postandcourier.com.