Judicial storm brews as SC lawmaker vows to block all judge elections until process changes
A South Carolina lawmaker says he’ll block the election of any judges in the state as long as “drug traffickers’ attorneys” are allowed to pick judges.
State Sen. Wes Climer, R-York, has vowed to filibuster judicial elections during the 2024 legislative session until the makeup of the state Judicial Merit Selection Commission changes, namely the removal of state Rep. Todd Rutherford, D-Richland.
“As long as there’s a system that allows drug traffickers’ attorneys to pick our judges, we will not have judicial elections,” Climer said, referring to Rutherford, a member of the body responsible for determining whether judges are qualified to serve.
Climer cited several cases where Rutherford, an attorney, represented criminal defendants who were convicted of drug trafficking, including one in which a man was sentenced more than 20 years in prison for conspiracy to possess 500 grams or more of cocaine, 28 grams or more of crack cocaine, and a quantity of heroin.
Rutherford dismissed Climer’s assertion that he’s unfit to serve on the JMSC based on his clientele and argued that, as a criminal defense lawyer, it’s his job to represent criminal defendants and that everyone, regardless of the crime, is entitled to adequate legal representation.
“What you have is a system by which there are people with a gripe and they are trying to air that gripe against individuals on JMSC, which I am one, to say that we have to change the entire system, even though they can’t point to a single problem,” Rutherford said.
Climer’s vow to filibuster is the latest move in a brewing judicial storm, as state officials call for major reforms to the way judges are selected in the state, with numerous leaders saying the current system lacks transparency and fairness.
State Sen. Dick Harpootlian, a Richland County Democrat who has proposed a bill that, among other things, would disqualify a legislator’s close relative from seeking a judgeship, said the “problem” with judicial selection in South Carolina is the public’s perception of a small number of people improperly wielding significant influence over the way judges are selected.
“The past two Judiciary committee chairmen’s wives are now circuit judges,” Harpootlian said. “That’s not to say they’re not qualified, but when the public see something like that, they question the integrity of the process. And there’s a perception that a very small group of very powerful lawyer-legislators are picking the judges and they have undue influence on those judges.”
It’s a sentiment echoed by S.C. House Speaker Murrell Smith, R-Sumter, who recently announced the formation of a judicial reform study committee, asking certain members to thoroughly review how the state can improve its judicial selection process.
“It is a process we must ensure is carried out in the best way possible so that the public can have confidence that its judges are fair, and that the selection process reflects the best judgment of the people,” Smith said in a letter to committee members.
In South Carolina, candidates for judicial office must first apply to the Judicial Merit Selection Commission. Following a review of a candidate’s background, the commission then forwards a report to the General Assembly, detailing whether the candidate is fit to serve. The full Legislature then selects a candidate among those deemed qualified. In the case of magistrates and masters-in-equity, Legislators decide which candidate they’ll recommend to Gov. Henry McMaster for appointment.
Other changes included in Harpootlian’s proposal would eliminate the current narrowing of nominees to three, allowing for a larger pool of candidates for any judicial seat to be considered by the General Assembly. It would also require that all comments and complaints against a candidate would be made public rather than the anonymous process used now.
While the issue of judicial reform has been long debated — with, some say, little to no progress — this time reform looks promising considering, in part, that Climer isn’t alone in his pledge to block all judicial nominations until reforms are made.
With the exception of S.C. Supreme Court Justice John Kittridge, who’s slated to become the court’s next chief justice, state Sens. Josh Kimbrell, R-Spartanburg and Harpootlian say they’ll support Climer in a filibuster. And while state Sen. Michael Johnson, R-York, wouldn’t say whether he’d do the same, he said he supports Climer’s efforts to highlight judicial reform and the need to make changes to our current system.
“I can tell you just from talking with people that there are very few people who truly believe that we don’t need to make any changes to the system,” Johnson said. “Now, there’s a host of how far those changes should go, but I think that we have to reform the JMSC.”
Still, Rutherford maintains that until one of his colleagues “points to a problem” with the current judicial selection process, he’s opposed to any type of reform.
“Show me the judge that has been indicted, show me the judge has been taking bribes,” Rutherford said. “You look around the country at all the other states that have problems with judges that are being indicted and charged with crimes and removed from the bench. We don’t have that problem here in South Carolina.”
This story was originally published October 9, 2023 at 10:35 AM.
