|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
South Carolina’s all-powerful legislative branch of government is once again targeting the state’s ostensibly “separate but equal” judiciary – hoping to remove a supreme court justice who blocked a legislative pay hike and forced lawmakers to rewrite a controversial abortion statute.
Whom are they hoping to replace him with? One of their own, of course…
The interminably incestuous interference of lawmakers with the “independent” interpretation of the laws they pass is escalating, according to a report filed last week by John Monk of The (Columbia, S.C.) State newspaper. Per Monk, associate supreme court justice John Few is in line to face multiple challengers this coming spring in his bid for reelection – including a challenge from former S.C. House speaker Jay Lucas.
Sources familiar with the current whip count on this race tell us it is Lucas’ race to lose – with the powerful former speaker enjoying the support of key lawyer-legislators in the S.C. General Assembly who decide which candidates become judges (and which don’t).
***
Would-be candidates have until 12:00 p.m. EDT on Monday (August 25, 2025) to submit their paperwork to seek the seat – with the legislature scheduled to vote on a slate of approved candidates on March 4, 2026. That’s just days before House members file paperwork for their own reelection bids in what is shaping up to be a contentious partisan primary session.
Few’s current ten-year term ends on July 31, 2026, which is when his successor would take office in the event he is defeated by Lucas.
Lucas’ bid to oust Few has revived long-standing concerns about the undue influence powerful lawyer-legislators and their allies wield over the Palmetto State’s judicial selection process. It has also exposed the impotence of recently adopted “judicial selection reform.”
FITSNews has written for years on the need to remove the corrupt, corrosive and anti-competitive meddling of lawyer-legislators and their trial lawyer allies. This banner has been taken up in the last few years by handful of principled prosecutors, conservative lawmakers and, most recently, by businessman Rom Reddy‘s DOGESC movement.
“There has to be a very clear separation of powers,” Reddy said during a recent interview with our media outlet.
Unfortunately, there is no separation of powers in South Carolina… as the lawyer-legislator jihad against Few capably demonstrates. And no separation of powers means there are no checks – and no balances – on legislative control.
***
RELATED | NANCY MACE PUSHES JUDICIAL REFORM
***
Longtime court watchers told us they feared Few’s removal from office would continue a terrible precedent.
“I hate to see judges taken out because of their opinion,” one veteran Palmetto judicial observer told FITSNews. “That will have a chilling effect on every judge who has to make an unpopular decision.”
One of Monk’s sources said something very similar, arguing judges would be “scared to death” of the threat of legislative removal from office – which, according to the source, would be “bad for the judiciary.”
The move would also be incredibly costly to South Carolina taxpayers.
If elected, Lucas would only be able to serve three years of a ten-year term owing to the Palmetto State’s mandatory retirement age for judges. He would, however, be eligible for a massive payout from the S.C. Retirement System (SCRS) – putting taxpayers on the hook for annual payments of 80% of his judicial salary of $233,606.
Few would be able to serve nearly all of a new ten-year term – and is line to become the state’s next chief justice in the event he wins reelection to the bench.
Count on FITSNews to keep close tabs on the upcoming judicial elections and the ongoing battle to belatedly fix the way judges are chosen in the Palmetto State.
BANNER VIA: S.C. SUPREME COURT HISTORICAL SOCIETY
***
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 eight 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 address proactively? We have an open microphone policy! 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.
9 comments
That drunk frat boy never should have been elected in the first place.
Corrupt SC lawyer legislators are always scheming. We saw how they weaseled out of fixing this situation last year and all the others just fell into place. We need a major clean out.
Nothing but the good ole boy system
As someone who has been interested in judicial reform, I have to say Speaker Lucas would be a welcomed addition to the SC Supreme Court. My friends in the legal community say he is a brilliant and one of the best legal minds in the state. I get the lawyer-legislator argument, but it does seem to be a great thing if you have someone who has actually written law sitting in a judicial chair. Why wouldn’t we want the best and brightest? I certainly doubt someone on the outside of the judiciary is going to tell Speaker Lucas what to do or inside, for that matter.
Judges only have the legal authority to enforce and determine, not ‘write’ law.
More of a corrupt system looking out for their own. They all knew Lucas was shooting for a Supreme court job when he left. It’s all a good ole boy plan. It is time for citizens to take back control from a corrupt legislature.
The notoriously corrupt self policing SC Judicial system was rattled when a long time dirty deeds state judge was finally taken down.
She was removed from office by a determination of the Judicial Merit Selection Commission at the end of her last term. Behind the curtains, the FBI was watching, too. Dozens of complaints were lined up and ready to file that would cause lots of black eyes if she remained a bench warmer.
Evil must be rooted out. It takes the courage of a lion to stand up in it’s face.
Now I’m worried. It seems like special interests groups are expressing their views at the cost of the judicial system. So, the end goal is not to attract the best and brightest to the bench out of desire to serve? Maybe it’s to have public elections so the person who barely graduated law school and passed the bar gets elected because his parents put millions into a campaign. No thanks. I think too much of my company to subject myself or it to a mediocre judicial system. Reform is good, but the current options are not. I hear people propose gubernatorial appointments or nominations and they literally think politics wouldn’t be involved. Please. Check the donor list! Our system is not perfect, but it is better than the other options. The question is how to make it better not worse. Electing the best and brightest is a good start.
Public elections by the people, only. Time to compel that right and clean out the good old boy country club mentality. Hundreds of thousands of signs and flyers, thousands of protestors in front of the Statehouse and the homes of the skanks will be a good start.