South Carolina is one of only two states (along with Virginia) in which the legislature
selects the supreme court. In contrast to South Carolina, judges in many states (like federal
judges) are appointed in a process that requires the consent of both the
other two branches: legislative and executive. Separation of powers.
Selection of a state Supreme Court justice by the SC General Assembly (legislature) begins with the state constitution which provides that "the
General Assembly by law shall establish a Judicial Merit Selection
Commission to consider the qualifications and fitness of candidates for
all judicial positions on these courts and on other courts of this State
which are filled by election of the General Assembly. The General
Assembly must elect the judges and justices from among the nominees of
the commission to fill a vacancy on these courts. No person may be elected to these judicial positions unless he or she
has been found qualified by the commission...."
Now three candidates have cleared screening by the Judicial Standards Commission and are campaigning among legislators. As The State reports, "The election is on Feb. 3 at noon, when the 169 senators and
representatives will gather in the House of Representatives. A winning
candidate must have 85 votes – one-half of the 169 senators and
representatives plus one – to win. A senator’s vote counts as much as a
representative’s."
More on South Carolina judicial selection here.
Judicial Selection, by Stephen Ware, a law professor at KU, in Lawrence, Kansas.
Showing posts with label South Carolina. Show all posts
Showing posts with label South Carolina. Show all posts
Friday, January 29, 2016
Tuesday, January 28, 2014
Legislature Electing Chief Justice of South Carolina
South Carolina is one of only two states in which the legislature selects the supreme court. Initial selection of judges this way is one thing, but judicial retention for another term is another. In SC a sitting chief justice is seeking another term by campaigning within the legislature. Her opponent: another sitting justice on the court. More on South Carolina judicial selection here.
Thursday, December 5, 2013
Call for South Carolina to Changes its Method of Judicial Selection
South Carolina judicial selection.
A South Carolina news organization, the Hilton Head Island Packet, points out that South Carolina is one of only two states (Virginia is the other) in which the legislature appoints all judges from the state supreme court on down. "And the state's Judicial Merit Selection Commission, whose 10 members nominate judges, is composed of six lawmakers. As if that isn't legislator overkill, three of the state's top lawmakers appoint the 10 members on the commission. The result: By the time a state judge ascends the bench in South Carolina, they're beholden to lawmakers in ways that do not serve the public and work directly against the notion of judicial independence." In contrast to South Carolina, judges in many states (like federal judges) are appointed in a process that requires the consent of both the other two branches: legislative and executive. Separation of powers.
The Island Packet argues "South Carolina could consider a merit-based system, similar to Florida's For appellate judge appointments, the governor chooses from a list recommended by the Judicial Nominating Commission (whose members are not selected by the legislature). When the justices' terms expire, their names appear on the general election ballot for a merit retention vote. If a majority of voters do not support retaining a judge, the governor appoints a replacement who has been screened by the commission." I point out the problems with this system here and here.
The Island Packet continues: "While some states employ a direct popular election, this too is problematic, as lawyers who appear before them are apt to be large campaign donors. Turning judges into politicians is not the fix. Another possibility: Model the state's system after the federal one. The governor would nominate, and legislators would advise and consent. At the very least, no judge would be beholden to just one governmental branch." I agree.
A South Carolina news organization, the Hilton Head Island Packet, points out that South Carolina is one of only two states (Virginia is the other) in which the legislature appoints all judges from the state supreme court on down. "And the state's Judicial Merit Selection Commission, whose 10 members nominate judges, is composed of six lawmakers. As if that isn't legislator overkill, three of the state's top lawmakers appoint the 10 members on the commission. The result: By the time a state judge ascends the bench in South Carolina, they're beholden to lawmakers in ways that do not serve the public and work directly against the notion of judicial independence." In contrast to South Carolina, judges in many states (like federal judges) are appointed in a process that requires the consent of both the other two branches: legislative and executive. Separation of powers.
The Island Packet argues "South Carolina could consider a merit-based system, similar to Florida's For appellate judge appointments, the governor chooses from a list recommended by the Judicial Nominating Commission (whose members are not selected by the legislature). When the justices' terms expire, their names appear on the general election ballot for a merit retention vote. If a majority of voters do not support retaining a judge, the governor appoints a replacement who has been screened by the commission." I point out the problems with this system here and here.
The Island Packet continues: "While some states employ a direct popular election, this too is problematic, as lawyers who appear before them are apt to be large campaign donors. Turning judges into politicians is not the fix. Another possibility: Model the state's system after the federal one. The governor would nominate, and legislators would advise and consent. At the very least, no judge would be beholden to just one governmental branch." I agree.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)