The calls for S.C. Judicial Reform have come from practically every corner of South Carolina.
This past week, the S.C. Speaker of the House Murrell Smith put together a Judicial Reform Committee. The committee is tasked with reforming the Judicial Merit Selection committee of which Horry County Senator Luke Rankin has lead for multiple decades.
Rankin has been a stand alone Senator refusing to engage in the process.
On October 4th, Rankin was called out by fellow Senator Dick Harpootlian.
Most of our readers know Harpootlian as the lawyer who defended Alex Murdaugh in the high profile murder case of Murdaugh’s wife and son.
What most of our readers don’t know is it was Murdaugh, as President of the S.C. Trial Lawyers, that helped Senator Rankin become head of the S.C. Judiciary.
Could this be a key reason why Senator Luke Rankin is resistant to S.C. Judicial Reform?
Harpootlian spells out multiple reasons why S.C. must have judicial reform in his letter to Rankin.
Says Harpootlian, “I believe the current process lacks transparency and gives the public the impression that a small group of powerful lawyer legislators control who gets elected to these positions.”
Calls for S.C. Judicial Reform have come from Governor Henry McMaster, Attorney General Alan Wilson, 1st Circuit Solicitor David Pascoe, and now S.C. House Speaker Murrell Smith.
What is the S.C. Judicial Merit Selection Committee?
The S.C. Judicial Merit Selection Committee refers to the body responsible for evaluating and nominating candidates for judicial positions in the state of South Carolina, USA. The committee plays a vital role in the judicial selection process and proclaims that it works to produce qualified and suitable candidates are considered for appointment or election to the judiciary.
Many in the state challenge those claims.
In South Carolina, judges are selected through a merit-based system, which involves a combination of appointment and election. The Judicial Merit Selection Committee is composed of a diverse group of individuals, including legislators, attorneys, and members of the public. Their “supposed” goal is to assess the qualifications, experience, integrity, and character of potential candidates for judicial office. However, legislators often complain that the most qualified candidates never make it to the floor for a vote in the General Assembly.
The committee claims to thoroughly review applications, conduct background checks, interviews candidates, and gathers feedback from various sources, such as judges, attorneys, and members of the community. The committee then recommends a shortlist of qualified candidates to the governor, who ultimately makes the final selection.
Most legislators and elected officials believe this system needs a complete overhaul.