America’s founders believed deeply in the separation of powers. The legislature writes the laws. The executive enforces them. The judiciary interprets them. Each branch has its role and each branch serves as a check on the others. South Carolina’s current system for selecting judges blurs those lines in ways that should concern anyone who cares about the integrity of the courts or their own freedoms.
South Carolina remains one of only two states in the country where the legislature effectively controls the judicial selection process from beginning to end. The General Assembly appoints the members of the Judicial Merit Selection Commission. That commission screens judicial candidates. The legislature then elects the judges.
When the same branch of government manages each step of that process, the result is an extraordinary concentration of authority in one place.
Many legislators serve with great integrity and take their responsibilities seriously. But structure matters. Systems should be designed to avoid conflicts of interest and preserve public confidence. In South Carolina, lawyer-legislators routinely appear in court before judges who were screened and elected through a process the legislature controls. Even when everyone involved acts honorably, that arrangement raises understandable questions for the public.
Justice must not only be fair. It must also be seen to be fair. That is why judicial reform has become an important conversation in our state. The legislation currently under consideration would move South Carolina toward a system that more closely resembles the constitutional balance of power envisioned by our founders.
Under the proposal, the governor would appoint the members of the Judicial Merit Selection Commission. The commission would continue to vet candidates and evaluate their qualifications. The General Assembly would still elect judges. But the legislature would no longer control the entire pipeline. Authority would be distributed rather than concentrated.
That is not a radical idea. In fact, it would bring South Carolina closer to the model used by most states in the country.
Some have argued that we should pause and see how recently enacted changes to the judicial screening process perform before pursuing additional reforms. But we were given a real-world reminder of the system’s weaknesses in just the last couple weeks.
The former Speaker of the South Carolina House nearly secured a seat on the South Carolina Supreme Court despite having very little experience as a judge. Regardless of anyone’s view of the individuals involved, that episode highlighted a broader structural problem. When legislative relationships and internal politics become central to judicial selection, the system begins to look less like a search for the best legal minds and more like an extension of the political process.
That is not healthy for the judiciary and it is not healthy for public trust.
The goal of reform is not to criticize those who have served under the current system. It is to strengthen the system itself. Institutions endure when they are willing to improve.
At its core, judicial reform is about humility. It is about recognizing that no branch of government should accumulate too much authority over time. It is about remembering that the purpose of constitutional design is to prevent power from becoming too comfortable in any one place and threatening the freedoms of the citizens.
The Senate now has an opportunity to continue the work the House has already begun. Many Senate Republicans understand the importance of this issue and support moving the bill forward. Yet, like many conservative reforms over the years, the legislation currently sits stuck in committee.
Committees are meant to study legislation, not quietly bury it. Judicial reform deserves to be debated openly on the Senate floor so that every member can vote according to his or her judgment.
South Carolina has an opportunity to strengthen one of its most important institutions. The courts function best when they are independent of political influence and when the public can trust that independence.
Reforming the judicial selection process will not solve every problem overnight. But it will move us toward a system that better reflects the principles of separation of powers, judicial independence and public accountability.
That is a goal worthy of bipartisan support and serious consideration.
— Wes Climer