South Carolina lawmakers are considering a bill that would give the governor full authority to appoint members to the body that screens judicial candidates.
The House proposal, backed by Republican leadership, would allow the governor to appoint all 12 members of the Judicial Merit Selection Commission. The commission would include eight attorneys and four members of law enforcement, none of whom could be current lawmakers.
A House subcommittee advanced the measure in a 4-1 vote Thursday. It now heads to the full Judiciary Committee.
The bill would also restrict who can serve on the commission by prohibiting immediate family members of legislators and requiring former lawmakers to wait two years before joining. Immediate family includes spouses, children, and siblings.
Rom Reddy, founder of the political group DOGE SC, is advocating for the legislation. Reddy previously sued the state over the removal of an unauthorized seawall at his Isle of Palms property. He began circulating the proposal in late 2023.
Legislators modified the judicial selection process earlier this year, giving the governor a single appointment to the panel. This new bill would give the governor full control.
Rep. Spencer Wetmore, a Democrat from Folly Beach, voted against the bill and expressed concern about consolidating power. “All I’m hearing is that we want to switch who has the influence to be the governor’s cronies,” she said.
Wetmore also noted that two supporters of the proposal — Attorney General Alan Wilson and U.S. Rep. Ralph Norman — are running for governor.
Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey, a Republican from Edgefield, said the bill may replace a system of competing interests with one dominated by the executive branch. “Everybody’s got an agenda,” he said. “This proposal would have us have one agenda.” He added that he prefers to observe how the 2024 judicial races unfold before making further changes.
South Carolina is one of two states where the legislature elects most judges. Lawmakers recently increased the number of judicial candidates the commission can send to the General Assembly from three to six, though no race this year has more than six candidates.
The screening panel ruled three candidates unqualified this cycle: two for a new Family Court seat and one for a position on the Administrative Law Court. The reasons have not been disclosed.
The bill would also remove language from state law encouraging the consideration of racial and gender diversity in judicial appointments. It would prohibit using any diversity, equity, or inclusion (DEI) criteria in the screening process.
Only one group, the South Carolina League of Women Voters, testified on the bill. Lynn Teague, representing the league, said the organization supports removing legislators from the panel but opposes eliminating DEI considerations.
“I know this a very hot-button cultural issue right now, but I’ve also heard the chief justice of our state Supreme Court comment that we need a judiciary that looks more like South Carolina,” Teague said.
Of the state’s 125 full-time judges across four courts, 48 are women, including 14 women of color. At least seven male judges are racial minorities.
Rep. Justin Bamberg, a Democrat from Bamberg, raised concerns about rolling back diversity efforts but still voted for the bill. “Could we find ourselves in a position where our state is moving backwards towards the days of when a minority or a woman had an almost impossible time of getting to the bench?” he asked.
Judicial elections are scheduled for March 4.
