|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
by WES CLIMER
***
America’s founders believed deeply in the separation of powers. The legislature writes the laws. The executive enforces them. The judiciary interprets them. Each branch has its role, and each branch serves as a check on the others. South Carolina’s current system for selecting judges blurs those lines in ways that should concern anyone who cares about the integrity of the courts or their own freedoms.
South Carolina remains one of only two states where the legislature effectively controls the judicial selection process from beginning to end. The General Assembly appoints the members of the Judicial Merit Selection Commission. That commission screens judicial candidates. The legislature then elects the judges.
When one branch of government controls each step of that process, the result is an extraordinary concentration of authority in one place.
Many legislators serve with integrity and take their responsibilities seriously. But structure matters. Systems should be designed to avoid conflicts of interest and preserve public confidence. In South Carolina, lawyer-legislators routinely appear in court before judges who were screened and elected through a process the legislature controls. Even if everyone involved acts honorably, that arrangement raises understandable questions for the public.
***
Justice must not only be fair. It must also be seen to be fair. That is why judicial reform has become an important conversation in our state. The legislation currently under consideration would move South Carolina toward a system that more closely resembles the constitutional balance of power envisioned by our founders.
Under the proposal, the governor would appoint the members of the Judicial Merit Selection Commission. The commission would continue to vet candidates and evaluate their qualifications. The General Assembly would still elect judges. But the legislature would no longer control the entire process. Authority would be distributed rather than concentrated.
That is not a radical idea. In fact, it would bring South Carolina closer to the model used by most states in the country.
Some have argued that we should pause and see how recently enacted changes to the judicial screening process perform before pursuing additional reforms. But we were given a real-world reminder of the system’s weaknesses in just the last couple weeks.
***
RELATED | ROM REDDY IS RUNNING FOR GOVERNOR
***
The former Speaker of the South Carolina House nearly secured a seat on the South Carolina Supreme Court despite having very little experience as a judge. Regardless of anyone’s view of the individuals involved, that episode highlighted a broader structural problem. When legislative relationships and internal politics become central to judicial selection, the system begins to look less like a search for the best legal minds and more like an extension of the political process.
That is not healthy for the judiciary and it is not healthy for public trust.
The goal of reform is not to malign those who serve under the current system. It is to strengthen the system itself. Institutions endure when they are willing to improve.
At its core, judicial reform is about humility. It is about recognizing that no branch of government should accumulate too much authority over time. It is about remembering that the purpose of constitutional design is to prevent power from becoming too comfortable in any one place and threatening the freedoms of citizens.
***
NEW LIVE SHOW WEDNESDAYS @ 7:00 P.M.
***
The Senate now has an opportunity to continue the work the House has already begun. Many Senators understand the importance of this issue and support moving the bill forward. Yet, like many conservative reforms over the years, the legislation is currently stuck in committee.
Committees are meant to study and refine legislation, not quietly bury it, especially when taxpayers are crying out for action. Judicial reform deserves to be debated openly on the Senate floor.
South Carolina has an opportunity to strengthen one of its most important institutions. The courts function best when they are independent of political influence and when the public can trust that independence.
Reforming the judicial selection process will not solve every problem overnight. But it will move us toward a system that better reflects the principles of separation of powers, judicial independence, and public accountability.
That goal is worthy of bipartisan support and serious consideration.
***
ABOUT THE AUTHOR…
Wes Climer is a candidate for the U.S. Congress. He represents the citizens of S.C. Senate District 15 in the S.C. General Assembly. He resides in Rock Hill with his wife and five 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
….. and Alan Wilson dis nothing, never prosecuted any lawless judges who acted without jurisdiction in family court cases. Never even prosecuted well known dirty lawyers with lots of powerful connection either.
This is the same Wes Climer who is blocking the anti-SLAPP bill in the SC Senate and in so doing disavowing the 1st Amendment. South Carolina is one of 11 states which has not passed this legoslation. Wes Climer is one of two SC senators, along with Ed Sutton, who is blocking the 1st Amendment legislation. Not a good look for Wes nor Ed as they allegedly pandering to deep pocketed SC developers while throwing the bill of rights under the bus. Don’t see Wes as viable in Washington.