The first meeting was held last Tuesday, November 7, and began with Chairman Pope reviewing the expected scope of their work, including 

• the composition and procedures of the Judicial Merit Selection Committee (JMSC),
• the evaluation and appointment of magistrates, and 
• the process of evaluating and appointing judges. 

A video of this meeting is available at https://www.scstatehouse.gov/video/archives.php.

The Committee heard first from Justice Kittredge, who will follow Justice Beatty as Chief. He:

• Stressed separation of powers, 
• opposed public election of judges, said the courts shouldn’t be subject to the changing “whims” of the public,
• urged attention to racial and gender diversity in the courts,
• urged incremental rather than abrupt major change,
• supported allowing the Governor to appoint members of the JMSC, 
• approved some expansion of the number of qualified candidates to be referred to the General Assembly, with caution not to allow all qualified candidates to proceed out of concern for overwhelming legislators with materials. 

Others testifying included legal scholars, a representative of the SC Bar Association, and a member of the North Carolina Judiciary. 

On November 14 at 10 AM the Committee will hear from invited members of the law enforcement community, including Attorney General Alan Wilson, SLED Chief Mark Keel, and Solicitor David Pascoe. This meeting will be held in Blatt 110 and also will be live-streamed. As usual, the agenda and links to the video stream are available from the home page of www.scstatehouse.gov.  

Public testimony will be accepted on November 28 at 10 AM. Subsequent meetings will proceed with committee deliberations with the ultimate goal of developing legislation for consideration by the full body by February 2024. 

The League of Women Voters considered issues surrounding the Judiciary in South Carolina more than a decade ago, in a two-year study that involved input from attorneys, judges, and legal scholars. We concluded that public election of judges is not desirable. There is no perfect method of selecting judges, but that may be the worst of the available options. We do support substantial reform of the JMSC. It is dominated by legislators, and instead should be composed of independent experts in the law and in ethics. This would both diversify the voices brought to the table, and prevent control of the entire selection process by one group.  

We are very concerned for the independence of the South Carolina Judiciary in the face of considerable legislative pressure, apparent in both the judicial selection process and in the potential for budgetary retribution when the courts make decisions that the General Assembly dislikes.  

In that connection we note Chief Justice Beatty’s dissent in the case of Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, et al. v. State of South Carolina, et al.: 

I cannot help but observe at the start that it has taken the extraordinary step of disregarding this Court's precedent as it struggles to justify its legally inconsistent result. This not only weakens  the  stability and reliance value of the law in this state, but ultimately undermines judicial independence and the integrity of the Court as an institution. . . .

As previously noted, the fear of legislative reprisal is palpable. The lack of judicial independence renders a court powerless and places it on the edge of a slippery slope to irrelevance.  

The League of Women Voters strongly encourages your attention to this important undertaking and presentation of testimony on November 28. Decisions will be made that can either protect or further diminish the role of our courts as an independent branch of government in the system of checks and balances that is necessary for a healthy representative democracy.