SC House version of judicial reform would remove senators’ complete control over magistrates

COLUMBIA — The debate over how legislators pick judges in South Carolina will likely continue into a special session after the House voted overwhelmingly Tuesday on its own version of reform.

Differences in what the House approved 112-6 from the Senate’s compromise include the makeup of the Legislature’s judicial screening committee and how many qualified candidates advance to a joint assembly vote.

But it’s the addition of a judicial bench to the screening process that could be the biggest sticking point to upcoming negotiations.

The House proposal makes changes in the seating and removal of magistrates — county judges that senators have almost complete authority over. Officially, the governor appoints magistrates, and senators confirm them.

In reality, the senators for each county tell the governor who to pick. And the governor has no ability to fire magistrates, even after their term ends, as senators can simply refuse to send a new name for appointment.

The House proposal would create a new, nine-member screening panel to review a senator’s selection, with the governor controlling the majority of the panel. Senators would appoint four of the nine members.

It would also stop the practice of senators keeping magistrates in so-called “holdover status” indefinitely to prevent their replacement.

Magistrates could stay on the bench for a maximum of two weeks after their term expires. The governor would newly have the power to make a temporary appointment if senators refuse to send a new name for screening.

Focus turns to magistrates in SC judicial reform hearing

Senators’ compromise, passed in March, did not touch the magistrate system. Proposed changes by the House, which has no role whatsoever in magistrate selections, to take authority away from senators is sure to cause heartburn in the upper chamber.

Other proposed changes in the magistrate system were opposed by a former magistrate.

The House plan would give magistrates authority over more cases. Currently, magistrates’ jurisdiction is limited to criminal charges punishable by no more than a month in jail and civil cases with possible fines up to $7,500. But the changes would give them authority over cases carrying up to a year in prison and fines of up to $25,000.

Rep. Tiffany Spann-Wilder, D-North Charleston, said she’s concerned about expanding the number and complexity of cases for judges who are largely not attorneys.

State law does not require magistrates to have a law degree. They need only to pass a legal exam to get certified within a year of being appointed.

“I believe you will have chaos with a nonlawyer sitting at the bench trying to sort through all of this,” said the North Charleston Democrat, a former magistrate who is a lawyer.

She was among six Democrats who voted against the plan.

South Carolina is among two states where the Legislature elects most judges to the bench. Prosecutors — including the state’s chief prosecutor, Attorney General Alan Wilson — have called for reform, saying the system gives the Legislature too much power over judges, particularly lawyer-legislators who appear before the judges they put on the bench.

SC Senate reaches compromise that tweaks how the Legislature selects judges

The most fervent opposition during floor debate Tuesday came from House Minority Leader Todd Rutherford, D-Columbia.

Rutherford, an attorney and member of the Legislature’s judicial screening plan, said he sees no reason to change the process.

That 10-member panel is made up of six legislators who are lawyers and four lawyers appointed by legislators. The House plan would expand the panel to 13 members and give the governor five of those appointments. Two of legislators’ appointments couldn’t be legislators.

Rutherford said South Carolina does not have an issue with corrupt judges.

He called it a mistake to move to a process where most members of the commission are appointees and not elected officials.

“If you ain’t never knocked on doors in your neighborhood … you should not have the ability to appoint a judge,” he said.

Other concerns were about the state’s lack of diversity on the bench.

“I have a particular concern that women of color are behind the eight ball, if you will, when it comes to being elected,” said Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter, D-Orangeburg. “That’s why I’m concerned about the lack of opportunity for people like me to sit on the bench.”

Rep. Jay Jordan, the chairman of a House Judiciary subcommittee who presented the House plan, pointed to new language that tells the screening panel to consider “race, gender, national origin, and other demographic factors.”

But Cobb-Hunter, the House’s longest-serving member, said that guidance won’t guarantee change. Increasing diversity will require Republican leaders in the Legislature getting behind minority candidates.

“The language in and of itself is a help, but that is not the cure all,” she told the SC Daily Gazette after the debate.

South Carolina’s Supreme Court is the only state high court in the nation without a single female. It currently has one Black justice — Chief Justice Don Beatty — but he retires this summer. The Legislature will vote next month to fill the upcoming vacancy.

The six judicial candidates to be screened in public hearings Wednesday and Thursday include one white woman and two Black women.

As for future changes in the screening process, another perfunctory vote by the House, expected Wednesday, would return the amended bill to the Senate, which will not agree with the changes.

To stay alive for negotiations in the special session, each chamber must appoint three members to a House-Senate committee before the regular session ends Thursday.