|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
by WILL FOLKS
***
Nearly a decade ago, our media outlet came out against term limits – reversing years of editorial support for this hugely popular policy plank.
“We are tired of countless politicians using this issue as populist pablum – a shiny election-year hook for the more impressionable members of our electorate,” I editorialized at the time. “Term limits is all for show. Politicians rush to embrace it – but then refuse to hold themselves accountable to the standard they claim to endorse. They use the issue for electoral gain, with no intention of ever passing term limits – and certainly no intention of ever limiting their own terms in office.”
That’s how my opposition to term limits began – with simmering resentment over hypocritical opportunists consistently leveraging it for their own advancement with no intention of ever actually limiting their terms in office.
In more recent years, I’ve come to view term limits as profoundly anti-Democratic.
“I get nervous around laws that fundamentally assume that Americans can’t be trusted,” fictitious president Josiah Bartlet opined in an early episode of The West Wing. “When the playing field is leveled and the process is fair and open, it turns out we have term limits. They’re called elections.”
***
Unfortunately in the Palmetto State, the playing field isn’t level and the process isn’t fair… which is why our non-competitive elections invariably produce a bunch of uni-party status quo hacks.
While 95-99% of our state’s elected officials are part of the problem (I know, probably a far too generous estimate), the answer shouldn’t be stripping voters of their rights – especially if they finally wise up and install people worth a damn into public office.
I don’t want term limits. I want citizen leaders replacing politicians, servants replacing self-dealers, crusaders replacing crony capitalists – and I want the good guys and gals who sweep in and prove their commitment to taxpayers to stay there for as long as they are willing and able to do so.
Seriously: why “throw the bums out” only to have them sneak back in a few years later after citizen-legislators get timed out of office?
To put it another way, I want 435 Ron Pauls serving in the U.S. House of Representatives in perpetuity. I want the ghost of Calvin Coolidge in the White House until judgment day. I want the ghost of Oliver Wendell Holmes running the judiciary until the lights go out.
Term limits would keep those things from happening…
***
RELATED | THE QUIET PART OUT LOUD
***
In South Carolina, though, first district congresswoman (and 2026 gubernatorial candidate) Nancy Mace has masterfully conjoined the populist appeal of term limits with the clarion call for judicial reform in the Palmetto State – where the legislatively controlled judiciary has been rife with corruption.
“The same legislature that picks judges protects judges,” Mace said this week. “That’s why we have judges serving forty years with zero accountability.”
Mace’s proposal would provide for:
- 12 years maximum per court (no judge serves more than 12 years on the same court).
- Career advancement allowed (judges can be promoted to higher courts with fresh 12-year terms).
- Mandatory retirement at age 72 (no loophole to avoid this provision).
- No more “retired” judges (repeals provisions allowing retired judges to sit by designation).
- Current judges grandfathered
“Twelve years is long enough to become an expert,” Mace added. “But not long enough to lose touch. When your twelve years are up or you hit 72, you hang up your robe for good. That’s what the South Carolina constitution intended.”
***
Term limits for judges. pic.twitter.com/hZKcF5166z
— Nancy Mace (@NancyMace) February 16, 2026
***
Mace is not the first Palmetto State elected official to take aim at retired judges. Last spring, state senator Wes Climer – a longtime proponent of fixing our judicial branch – filed a bill last week which would amend the eligibility of retired judges to continue serving without being subjected to a review of their performance.
To her credit, Mace didn’t just lay out a series of proposals – she accompanied them with a ready-to-file bill, something more candidates for elected office should think about doing.
While I’m not wild about term limits, Mace’s overarching goal of imposing accountability over South Carolina’s badly broken judicial system is a worthwhile one – and her proposed legislation marks the latest in a series of credible efforts aimed at doing just that.
Personally, though, I believe in lieu of term limits South Carolina Republicans – who enjoy two-thirds majorities in both the S.C. House and State Senate – should advance constitutional change addressing the root of the problem.
Three years ago, FITSNews editorialized in favor of a comprehensive overhaul of our court system in which governors would pick judges, legislators would approve those choices and (most importantly) citizens would decide every four years whether to keep them in office. We also proposed dramatically expanding our state’s recall election statutes – and applying those to judges.
“All sitting judges – at every level – would be subjected to petition-based recall elections as well as quadrennial retention elections,” I noted at the time.
While I continue to believe this model would provide the most accountability over a failed system… credit to Mace for advancing the conversation via substantive policy ideas.
Because one thing has been made abundantly clear over the past few years: the current system cannot stand.
***
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.
2 comments
This is a great idea, but the term should be half that….6 years, not 12.
After decades of years gone by and citizens who were done dirty by SC judges, guess who put up more barriers to protect bad SC judges?
A 2025 Amendment – updates to Rule 502, and Rule 413 include revisions to the screening process, specifically regarding the handling of time limitations for complaints and the service of subpoenas.
Use to be complaints against judges could be filed 10 to 20 years or more after the fact. But not anymore.
What about statute of limitations to charge a person with rape or homicide? There are none. But filing a complaint against a corrupt judge now must be done within 5 years of the alleged incident or …. .. .
What a messed up system!