The 91黑料爆料's Judicial Independence and Impartiality Committee was created to provide appropriate and timely responses to criticism of judges and courts.
This committee is by appointment only.
Committee Chair
Bev Carroll
Morton and Gettys
The concept of judicial independence is central to the rule of law and to the checks and balances it supports in our constitutional democracy.
The preamble to the states:
Our legal system is based on the principle that an independent, fair and competent judiciary will interpret and apply the laws that govern us. The role of the judiciary is central to American concepts of justice and the rule of law. Intrinsic to all sections of this Code are the precepts that judges, individually and collectively, must respect and honor the judicial office as a public trust and strive to enhance and maintain confidence in our legal system. The judge is an arbiter of facts and law for the resolution of disputes and a highly visible symbol of government under the rule of law.
Independent courts protect our freedoms, which are guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. The written rights would mean little without independent and impartial courts to protect them.
An independent judiciary鈥攖he third and co-equal branch of government鈥攁cts fairly, is grounded in the rule of law and free from outside control or influence.
Courts and judges are accountable to the Constitution and laws鈥攏ot ideologies, special interests or individuals. This framework, developed by our nation鈥檚 founders, guarantees that independent courts and judges remain faithful to the rule of law.
When criticism of judges鈥� rulings crosses the line into personal attacks or intimidation, public respect for our justice system is undermined. This creates a threat to justice, the rule of law, our constitutional democracy, and freedom in general.
The 91黑料爆料, which serves more than 17,000 members and the public, is dedicated to advancing the legal profession in our state. The Bar鈥檚 mission includes promoting high quality legal education and continually improving the administration of justice throughout the Palmetto State.
The SC Bar鈥檚 Judicial Independence Committee, established by the Board of Governors, promotes the importance of an independent judiciary by:
South Carolina has a system of legislative, merit-based elections for most judicial positions.
Legislators choose judges from a pool of up to three candidates whom the Judicial Merit Selection Commission (JMSC) has deemed qualified for judicial office after receiving feedback from surveys, citizen review groups and the 91黑料爆料 Judicial Qualifications Committee (JQC).
To assist South Carolinians in understanding the judicial selection process, the Judicial Independence and Impartiality Committee of the 91黑料爆料 has prepared this fact sheet regarding the current process and its history, along with a brief commentary on the importance of having a fair and impartial judicial election process in which the impact of partisan politics is minimized.
The South Carolina General Assembly elects Supreme Court justices and judges to the Court of Appeals, the Administrative Law Court, Circuit Court, and Family Court.听听Elections are held in a joint session of the General Assembly.听听Each member of the Senate and House of Representatives has one vote and, to be elected, a candidate must receive a majority of the votes cast.
Candidates for each of these judicial positions submit detailed applications to the JMSC, setting forth their background and experience. Prior to the election, all candidates are screened by the JMSC, which is comprised of four members of the public and six Senate and House members. The screening process includes:鈥��
South Carolina judges must stand for re-election every six years (every 10 years for the Supreme Court).鈥��
Legislative delegations confirm the gubernatorial appointments of Masters-in-Equity. Probate judges are elected directly by the public. Magistrate and municipal judges are selected separately.
Updates were made to South Carolina鈥檚 judicial selection system in 1996, which is when the JMSC was formed. See Kevin Eberle,听Judicial selection in South Carolina: who gets to judge?听13 SC Lawyer 6, 20-25 (2002). Prior to the changes, any person who met the constitutional age and residency requirements could be considered for a judgeship by the General Assembly. Now, the JMSC has the exclusive authority to nominate candidates for the General Assembly鈥檚 consideration.
Another key change in 1996 was the addition of a requirement that the JMSC forward the names of not more than three nominees to the General Assembly. Previously, the review panel did not have authority to remove names from consideration and sent all candidates鈥攓ualified or not鈥攖o the General Assembly for consideration. Legislators cannot seek judicial office until one year after leaving the General Assembly or one year after failing to file for reelection to the General Assembly. In addition, no member of the JMSC is eligible to run for a judge or justice position until having been off the JMSC for a year.听
Finally, the law prohibits early campaigning by candidates and bans legislators from offering their pledge of support until after the JMSC formally releases its qualifications report. No legislator can trade anything of value, including a pledge to vote for legislation or for other candidates, in exchange for votes for a particular candidate.
To dispense justice under the rule of law, the judicial branch must be independent of outside influences of any kind from any direction. It is crucial to the integrity of our justice system that judicial elections remain based upon the candidates鈥� qualifications alone, not the coercion of special interests. The introduction of political ideology into our justice system threatens the historical separation of powers and rule of law.
Members of the public, on their day in court, want to appear before an unbiased judge, elected not because of his or her allegiance to special interest groups or campaign contributors, but because of his or her qualifications to serve that office.
Other states use different methods for selecting judges, including appointment by the governor, usually with Legislative consent, much like the Federal system, and direct public election of judges. Every judicial selection method, however, includes an element of politics.
Public election of judges is typically funded in the same manner as other elections, bringing some risk of undue influence, or at least the appearance of influence, by campaign contributors. 鈥淲hile popular elections no doubt produce a judiciary more aware of popular sentiment, accountability to the public is cited by opponents as a hindrance to a judge's impartiality; an elected judge must contend not just with the pressure to please the masses, but also the need to please the donors to his or her campaign,鈥� Kevin Eberle, Judicial Selection in South Carolina: Who Gets to Judge?, S.C. Law. 20, 22 (May/June 2002).
The appointment of judges by a governor avoids the campaign finance concerns of public elections, but places much of the power to select judges in the hands of a single elected official. By contrast, the South Carolina system requires that a candidate receive the support of a broad group of elected representatives.
South Carolina鈥檚 current system has been among the least affected by partisan politics, and its effectiveness in creating a high-quality bench has been noted by observers. As one author has asserted, 鈥渋n spite of common criticisms, South Carolina's present system and process for judicial selection has improved since the reforms of 1996 and is now structured to better serve the State's needs. South Carolina's process for judicial selection, though not without flaws, has produced a highly-qualified judiciary that is now more diverse and operates effectively and independent of legislative control.鈥� Ronald T. Scott, Judicial Selection in South Carolina: Is the Time Ripe for Systematic Restructuring and Improvement? You Be the Judge, 68 S.C. L. Rev. 743 (2017).
Although no system is without flaws, the current system in South Carolina is designed to provide a transparent process for judicial selection with meaningful opportunities for public input. Its goal is to elevate merit over partisan political considerations.
Scott, Ronald T. (2017) " 68 S.C. L Rev. 743 (Spring 2017). Available at South Carolina Law Review: Vol. 68: Iss. 4, Arti91黑料爆料 9. Available at: .
Eberle, Kevin (2002) 鈥淛udicial Selection in South Carolina: Who Gets to Judge?鈥� 13 SC Lawyer, 20-25. (May/June 2002).
Bannon, Alicia (2016). 鈥�,鈥� Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law
Opinion in听The State听(July 20, 2022)
Opinion in听The State听补苍诲听Island Packet听辞苍濒颈苍别听(July 19, 2022)
听Commentary in听The Post and Courier (Oct. 19, 2021)听