|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
In a possible prelude of a forthcoming gubernatorial bid, South Carolina attorney general Alan Wilson staked himself out on the issue of judicial reform – and vowed to make the issue a centerpiece of the public debate moving forward.
Wilson took some heat from us a few months ago for offering up tepid proposals aimed at fixing the Palmetto State’s notoriously corrupt judicial branch of government – which is effectively run by a handful of powerful lawyer-legislators in the S.C. General Assembly.
On Monday morning (July 10, 2023) in Charleston, S.C., the 49-year-old prosecutor upped his game – embracing both short-term and long-term reforms aimed at resolving this worsening judicial crisis.
Flanked by S.C. ninth circuit solicitor Scarlett Wilson – a staunch advocate for fairness in our court system – and Dr. Oran Smith of the Palmetto Promise Institute, Wilson told a group of state lawmakers he supported moving the Palmetto State to the “federal model” of judicial selection, hoping to address “an imbalance of power” and deter “legislative abuse.”
***
South Carolina is one of only two states in America in which lawmakers elect judges. As we have seen in far too many cases, lawyer-legislators reap the rewards of their influence over this process by receiving preferential treatment on behalf of their clients. As this news outlet has consistently noted, the current system has enabled widespread institutional corruption, shredded the rights of victims, empowered violent criminals and materially eroded public safety.
It has also turned the judiciary into little more than a political annex of the legislature.
Changing this system permanently would require an amendment to the constitution … which most agree is unlikely to happen in the coming legislative session.
As he works toward that solution, Wilson proposed a series of short-term reforms to the much-maligned Judicial Merit Selection Commission (SCJMSC). As noted in our prior coverage, candidates seeking a judgeship must first submit their resumes to the 10-member SCJMSC – which is currently controlled by powerful lawyer-legislators. The S.C. Senate appoints five commission members; the House picks the other five. At the moment, six of the ten members of this panel are currently attorneys serving in the S.C. General Assembly.
***
RELATED | SHERIFF, PROSECUTOR SPEAK OUT
***
Wilson wants to have all ten members of this panel appointed by future governors – or executive branch leaders – while at the same time prohibiting lawyer-legislators from serving on the panel. He also wants to remove an arbitrary cap which limits the number of judicial candidates whose names can be submitted to the legislature for consideration in its elections.
“We currently have an imbalance of power in our judicial system,” Wilson said. “That must change. By letting the governor, or the executive branch, appoint the members to the JMSC and removing the legislators from serving on the JMSC, we can deliver meaningful judicial reform that is truly accountable to the people.”
According to Wilson, “having legislators serve on the JMSC, especially with no involvement from the governor, breeds mistrust and potential for abuse – real or perceived.”
Solicitor Scarlett Wilson pulled no punches in her assessment of the “perceived” abuse of the current method of judicial selection.
(Click to View)
“We’ve all seen some judicial candidates that made it through, and we scratched our head because they shouldn’t have – and we’ve all seen some that should have made it through but did not,” she said. “When I go into court against a lawyer legislator on the other side, I’m going against someone who can hire and fire the judge I’m appearing before. We need to change the make up of the JMSC to ensure one group doesn’t have an advantage and judges aren’t put in an uncomfortable position.”
This issue is obviously very important to me. My news outlet has expended significant bandwidth in recent years demanding reform of South Carolina’s badly broken judicial system – and pushing to hold Palmetto State judges and prosecutors accountable when they fail to uphold their duty to the public.
My proposed solution? A hybrid model in which judges are nominated by governors based upon the recommendations of a reconfigured judicial merit panel – one which would be comprised (among other members) of a sheriff, a police chief, a solicitor, a defense attorney, a family law attorney, a retired judge and (most importantly) a victims’ rights advocate.
Once the governor submitted a nominee, this candidate would receive an up-or-down “advice and consent” vote from the full S.C. General Assembly – with two key caveats: First, any lawmaker practicing law in the Palmetto State would be prohibited from participating in any judicial election. Ever. Second, after booting the lawyers from the room, I would add weight to the votes of state senators based on the fact they represent larger populations than state representatives.
Once a judge is confirmed, the third and most important component of the “hybrid” model would take effect – public accountability. All sitting judges – at every level – would be subjected to petition-based recall elections as well as quadrennial retention elections. Neither the recall nor retention votes would pit them against opponents, mind you … these would simply be “yea” or “nay” votes from the public as to whether the judge kept their seat or not. Assuming the answer was “nay,” the gubernatorial appointment process outlined above would recommence.
***
ABOUT THE AUTHOR …
Will Folks is the founding editor of the news outlet you are currently reading. Prior to founding FITSNews, he served as press secretary to the governor of South Carolina. He lives in the Midlands region of the state with his wife and seven children.
***
WANNA SOUND OFF?
Got something you’d like to say in response to one of our articles? Or an issue you’d like to proactively address? We have an open microphone policy here at FITSNews! Submit your letter to the editor (or guest column) via email HERE. Got a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Got a technical question or a glitch to report? CLICK HERE.
5 comments
The problem with your hybrid model is that is focuses almost exclusively on criminal law. You mention one family law attorney, but you fail to include any person primarily involved in civil law practice. While criminal matters often get the most ink when it comes to court issues, civil matters make up a large part of the judicial system and often result in important decisions that affect all citizens. Somehow you would have to include attorneys that practice primarily civil litigation, both plaintiff and defense.
We don’t have a prayer in this world. We have a state run by corrupt officials who aren’t threatened on the federal stage because they are also corrupt. Go ahead and throw Trump in jail and then hereafter all of the criminals who are put on trial and found guilty of corruption. Next up of course, is Joe Biden. Then you can back track all the way to WJC and GHWB until our government is purged of crooks. Now, I’m just a simple fellow from South Carolina. A couple years ago I reached out to Senator Graham about some issues that are important to me. Two of his responses were, “take it to your local representatives,” and “I will never vote to decriminalize any illegal drug.” After the latter I received an eleven-year-old tax bill from the IRS. Go figure? Now I’m afraid to even approach the dude(?) in fear of his retribution for me rattling his cage. It sucks!
I don’t know. Look what the federal model has got us at the federal level. The most corrupt Supreme Court in history. With billionaires paying for luxury trips and vacations and entering into sweetheart business deals that only make sense if they are intended to be bribe with numerous Supreme Court Justices.
You state, “The most corrupt Supreme Court in history.” Please explain. Or is it that they are interpreting more closely following the rule of law and not legislating from the bench, and that doesn’t sit well with you.
Hmmm….Our State which practices impartial application of the law and that exercises misfeasance from one generation to the other. It’s a start, so give him some credit, even though he holds his position directly related to these things. I don’t see old ways changing. These new faces Nikki and Tim one would think they are like a phoenix rising but they have the same levers and faces behind their masks. It’s a start and needs to happen if you are going to open the State’s doors to northerners and others with a differing critical eye. All can’t be solved by controlling the people through prayer and yes Ma’am and No Sir and he’s a good Man from a good family blah blah blah. Also, sorry to hear William Austin’s words from above…we can grandstand with a personality that espouses freedom and good vs. evil but exhibit qualities of Vlad’s FSB in our IRS behind closed doors. Quite sad and quite un-American. God help us!