COLUMBIA -- A much-hyped effort earlier this year to remove the state Legislature from its long-standing role vetting judicial candidates appears poised to die a quiet death in the state Senate.
Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey, R-Edgefield, told reporters that a bill designed to put the process in the hands of a panel of governor appointees is unlikely to receive a full Senate vote ahead of legislative deadlines.
The bill had passed by overwhelming margins in the House of Representatives in February.
"We haven't had any conversations on it," Massey said April 15. "And I think the more time that's gone on, the more people have had second thoughts on that."
He said the fact its also crept up as an issue in the governor's race "there's been even less willingness, I think, to engage in it."
Concerns about who's in charge
For years, the state's judge vetting panel -- the Judicial Merit Selection Commission -- primarily consisted of members of the legislature, many of whom were lawyers.
Public concern about the potential for so-called "lawyer legislators" to choose judges they may one day practice in front of led to a successful, if contentious, 2024 effort to reduce their influence on the panel, resulting in several governor-appointed non-legislators gaining voting powers on the commission.
The changes took effect last summer. But they were not enough for some.
Gov. Henry McMaster, who has long pushed for greater influence on the JMSC, characterized the reforms as non-meaningful in an early statement slamming the changes.
Ahead of this year's legislative session, some lawmakers pushed to eliminate legislators' role on the panel entirely, while figures like attorney general candidate David Pascoe and gubernatorial candidates Alan Wilson and Rom Reddy made reforms to the state's judicial selection process cornerstones of their respective campaigns.
Further concerns were stoked earlier this year amid a bid for a state Supreme Court seat by former House Speaker Jay Lucas, a Hartsville Republican who enjoys significant support among his former colleagues.
SC holds onto a rare process
South Carolina and Virginia, critics note, are the only states where legislatures select their judges, making the states outliers.
But the process can also make the judiciary work with greater synergy with the state Legislature, backers of the status quo say.
In his annual state of the judiciary address to a joint meeting of the General Assembly on April 15, S.C. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Kittredge appeared to praise the norm around how the state picks judges, saying he believed the process works well.
"We in the judiciary, like you, are aware of the half-truths and false narratives that circulate on social media, podcasts and other outlets masquerading as journalism attacking you and our justice system," he said.
"We leave it to you to determine what changes -- if any -- are needed in the method of selecting judges," he added. "There is no perfect way to select judges. But I suggest to you that the legislature has selected quality judges over the years."
State Rep. Gil Gatch, R-Summerville, who sponsored the bill in the House, said he did not believe the chief justice's comments were levied at his bill. But he fired a shot at his colleagues in the Senate whom he believed to be sitting on a policy he contends has broad support from the public.
Polling by the right-leaning South Carolina Policy Council in February found roughly 58 percent of the voting public favored reforming how South Carolina selects judges. And the Senate, which does not face re-election until 2028, had little political pressure against them to make change.
"The Senate seems to be more excited about getting bills passed when they're in an election year," Gatch said. "So I would hope that they would see that this is something that the people want now, and not make it a political issue for election. Let's make it about what the constituents want. And it seems that the constituents are very, very passionate about this. I'd like to listen to them."