South Carolina Judicial Drama: Lawmakers Target Judge For Ouster

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

At this point, we really don’t need to see any further examples of the South Carolina General Assembly’s utter unfitness to choose judges in the Palmetto State – but they continue to provide them regardless.

As public safety continues to evaporate and the rights of victims continue to be shredded, a clique of power-hungry lawyer-legislators keeps installing its supplicants and sycophants onto the bench – and then benefiting from the influence lorded over them.

We see this incestuous corruption at work all across the state … with each year producing fresh scandals via the notoriously corrupt legislative “merit” screening (and subsequent legislative election) of judicial candidates.

South Carolina, our audience will recall, is one of only two states in America where lawmakers pick judges – a system which has enabled widespread institutional corruption, perpetual re-victimization, the empowerment of violent criminals and materially eroded public safety.

How do we know how bad it’s gotten? Because it’s become a friggin’ newsworthy event when the system actually works for a change …

The dominance of the S.C. General Assembly over the screening and selection of judges has, not surprisingly, turned the judiciary into little more than a political annex of the legislature – with any judge who crosses a lawmaker in line for reprisal.

***

Consider the case of Richland County master-in-equity Joseph M. Strickland, who has held his post since 1989 and was scheduled to continue serving until the end of his most recent six-year term in April of 2027.

Masters-in-equity are appointed differently than other judges in South Carolina. Technically, they are appointed by the governor (after being approved by the same legislatively controlled “merit” screening committee). In reality, though, they are chosen by the members of the legislative delegation in the county where they serve.

The governor’s involvement in the process is simple: To rubber stamp the name of the candidate local lawmakers choose.

Strickland’s case has become anything but simple, though. That’s because the leader of the Richland County legislative delegation appears to have unilaterally removed him from office based on a grudge held by one of his colleagues.

In a motion (.pdf) filed before the S.C. supreme court earlier this month, Strickland alleged that “personal animosity” from S.C. senator John Scott Jr. served as the basis for him being unlawfully removed from the bench. As a result, Strickland is asking the court to reinstate him and withdraw the “vacancy” which was recently declared for his seat.

Why is Scott allegedly holding a grudge against Strickland?

***

RELATED | TOP PROSECUTOR WANTS FEDERAL MODEL FOR PICKING JUDGES

***

“The basis for this animosity centers on John Scott’s son, who was employed in judge Strickland’s chambers,” the complaint noted. “Law enforcement discovered that the son had stolen property throughout the Richland County courthouse. When judge Strickland learned of this pattern from the Richland County sheriff’s department, the son was allowed to resign in lieu of termination.”

According to Strickland, “it is this circumstance that prompted John Scott to influence the RCLD to withhold judge Strickland’s name from submission to the governor.”

Wait … what?

First of all, if deputies discovered theft from the taxpayers – Scott’s son should have been arrested on the spot. And Strickland should have fired his ass on the spot. There also should have been criminal charges filed against the younger Scott. A review of Richland County public records reveals no such charges were ever filed, though.

Without impugning the integrity of Richland County sheriff Leon Lott or S.C. fifth circuit solicitor Byron Gipson in any way, it seems appropriate at minimum for the S.C. State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) and the office of attorney general Alan Wilson to review these allegations just to make sure public trust is upheld.

But there’s a bigger problem here …

(Click to View)

According to Strickland’s filing – which named all sixteen members of the delegation as defendants – his removal from office was unilaterally accomplished by the pen of state representative Leon Howard, chairman of the Richland County legislative delegation.

Specifically, Howard submitted a letter to Erin Crawford, the chief legal counsel for the S.C. Judicial Merit Selection Commission (SCJMSC), on June 29, 2023 stating there was an “occurred vacancy” in Strickland’s post because the delegation “did not agree to submit his name to the governor for consideration.”

“As such, judge Strickland has remained in this position while a vacancy remains due to the expiration of his term,” Howard wrote.

Howard went on to say his colleagues were eager to “move forward in the process to fill this vacancy.”

As you can see below, this letter was submitted on the county delegation’s letterhead – which included the names of all sixteen of its members.

Take a look …

(Click to View)

The problem?

According to multiple members of the delegation who spoke with this news outlet on condition of anonymity, they never received the letter – or had any idea Howard had unilaterally declared a vacancy.

“Action was taken on behalf of the delegation without the delegation’s approval,” one senator told me, referring to Howard’s letter. “There was never any discussion, never any vote.”

“We weren’t even copied on the letter,” the senator added.

Another state lawmaker confirmed “Leon and John (Scott) cooked this whole thing up,” and that the rest of the delegation was left “completely in the dark.”

“We found out when people started calling us asking to be considered for the master-in-equity position,” one delegation member told me.

Even more incriminating? Scott appears to have shared his stated lust for vengeance against Strickland to at least one of his colleagues after the fact – taking credit for Howard’s letter.

How on earth should the S.C. supreme court go about un-clustering this monumental clusterfuck? Who knows … but the unspooling debacle is yet another example of why Palmetto State lawmakers should not be within a country mile of the judicial selection process. Certainly, they should have zero authority over the process beyond the standard advice-and-consent incorporated in the federal model of judicial selection – which many reform-minded elected officials are now favoring.

What sort of reform does this news outlet favor? A hybrid model in which judges are nominated by governors, given advice and consent by lawmakers and then held to account via petition-based recall elections as well as quadrennial retention elections.

Once again, though, anything is preferable to the status quo … as corrupt lawmakers continue proving on an almost daily basis that they cannot be entrusted with this authority.

***

THE FILING …

(Via: S.C. Supreme Court)

***

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.