In line for SC chief justice, Kittredge calls for transparency amid talk of judicial reform
The man expected to become South Carolina’s next Supreme Court chief justice made his final appeal in support of his candidacy, leading off a series of statewide judicial candidate interviews amid a intensifying scrutiny of the way South Carolina vets and selects judges.
For the next several weeks, the Judicial Merit Selection Commission will publicly interview more than 80 candidates seeking a state judgeship. First among them Monday was South Carolina Supreme Court Justice John Kittredge, who’s running to replace current Chief Justice Don Beatty, who’s set to retire next summer. Highly favored and respected by those in the legal community and beyond, Kittredge is the only candidate running for chief justice and, with more than 30 years on the bench, likely will assume the role following Beatty’s departure.
Notwithstanding the import of Kittredge’s final interview for the state’s top judicial spot, Monday’s hearing attracted attention to the judicial selection process itself, following ongoing calls by multiple state officials for a change in the way judges are elected in South Carolina.
Ongoing concerns have been raised about the transparency and perception of trustworthiness of the judiciary, and particularly concerns about what level of influence is held by lawyer-legislators who hold power over screening judges.
Kittredge, on Monday, was quick to declare that having the public’s confidence in the integrity of the judicial system is critically important.
“We need to increase transparency and accountability across the board in the judicial branch,” Kittredge told the commission. “We can have a wonderful system, but if the public doesn’t believe it’s fair, it’s not. Perception is a reality.”
Having served on every major state court since 1991, including family court, circuit court, the court of appeals and the Supreme Court, Kittredge said this past summer marked 32 years since he’s been a state judge.
JMSC received 1,395 BallotBox survey responses regarding Kittredge’s candidacy for chief, according to Patrick Dennis, a screening attorney for JMSC. Of those, an additional 160 comments were included that were, for the most part, positive, Dennis said. Of the 160, the commission received 12 comments that were negative, essentially saying that Kittredge was too conservative in his judicial philosophy.
“Quite frankly, after 32 years, I’m surprised you didn’t get more negative responses,” Kittredge said. “But I have tried diligently to apply the law fairly, and I am apolitical and I believe that with every fiber of my being. I’ve tried to treat everyone that I deal with both in and out of court with the utmost respect, kindness, and professionalism. And I have tried to devote myself to applying the law fairly to everyone.
Judge selection process under scrutiny
JMSC chairman state Rep. Micah Caskey, R-Lexington, made an effort to highlight just how exhaustive the judicial selection process is.
“One of the things that struck me as I joined the commission last year is just how thorough and deliberative it is from top to bottom,” said Caskey, who is an attorney himself.
In South Carolina, candidates for judicial office must first apply to the Judicial Merit Selection Commission, a 10-member statutorily created body charged with considering candidates’ qualifications. Following a thorough examination 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.
But some state officials, including lawmakers, S.C. Attorney General Alan Wilson and elected solicitors, have repeatedly claimed the process lacks fairness and transparency.
Complaints against the current process have mostly been centered around lawyer-legislators serving on the JMSC, who, some say, leverage their position on the commission to improperly influence the judges they appear before, creating an unfair advantage against lawyers on the other side who are not lawmakers. That leverage, some argue, creates a public perception that a small number of people are improperly wielding significant influence over the way judges are selected.
South Carolina is one of only two states, including Virginia, that elect judges via the General Assembly.
Currently, of the 10 JMSC members, six are sitting legislators. And all commissioners, including the four non-legislators, are appointed by the legislative leadership.
Last month, nine elected solicitors sent a letter to S.C. House Speaker Murrell Smith and Senate Judiciary Chairman Luke Rankin asking that all lawyer-legislators be removed from the JMSC, namely state Rep. Todd Rutherford, who has increasingly been at the center of calls for judicial reform.
Rankin, an Horry County Republican and vice chairman of the JMSC — who is also a lawyer — invited Kittredge to comment on the judicial selection process in South Carolina compared to other states.
“Each week, we get a report of cases of judicial misconduct from around the country, and unfortunately, it’s a pretty long list,” Kittredge said. “And what you don’t see on that list, or very, very rarely, is a judge from South Carolina being disciplined. Why is that? It’s the vetting that goes on here.”
Kittredge added that South Carolina mirrors its rules for judicial conduct after those of the American Bar Association and doesn’t have a “special rule favoring judges.”
Kittredge said that of all judges in South Carolina, magistrates and municipal judges, who are not required to be screened by the JMSC, are disciplined the most.
“Maybe it’s ... because there’s so many numbers of magistrates and municipal judges,” Kittredge said. “But I will point out to you that they don’t go through the vetting that we do in the state court system.”
In investigating a judicial candidate’s background, the JMSC gathers information from more than a dozen sources to determine the candidate’s fitness to serve. Those layers of vetting include background checks by the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, and credit and economic interest checks. Candidates are also screened for any grievances or reprimands from the Commission on Judicial Conduct and the Commission on Lawyer Conduct.
But regardless of how tough the undertaking of becoming a state judge is, Wilson, the state’s attorney general, says the current process creates an imbalance of power.
“One of the things I would like to do is bring balance back to our three branches of government so that each branch has an equal and distinct check on the other branches of government,” Wilson said during a judicial reform panel discussion in August.
“We spend nearly all of our time in the enforcement of the laws passed by the legislative branch, appearing before the judicial branch,” Wilson said. “Yet the executive branch of government has absolutely no say whatsoever, or no check ... on the people who are interpreting laws we’ve been charged with enforcing.”
