[{"_1":2,"_85":-5,"_86":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":59,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":65,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6103270,"mediaKeyId","2798325-deb8b3d1927e0487cb41cfda1cb2923f","parentId",2798325,"title","Subcommittee advances bill to limit public posting of judges’ and law‑enforcement contact information","audioSeconds",809,"startMs",682000,"endMs",1491000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2798325-deb8b3d1927e0487cb41cfda1cb2923f&start=682&end=1491","thumbnailUrl","https://d352y6ypj4mjo3.cloudfront.net/AudioPlaceholder.png","articleUrl","/articles/6103270/South-Carolina/Subcommittee-advances-bill-to-limit-public-posting-of-judges-and-lawenforcement-contact-information","mediaUrl","author","South Carolina Legislature","date","2025-03-27T00:00:00Z","article","The Constitutional Law Subcommittee voted to report S.126 after hearing testimony from state and county records officials who urged clarity and more time for local offices to implement shielding of records.

Shannon Wiley, general counsel and public information director for the Secretary of State’s office, told the committee the secretary supports the amendments in S.126 and explained why the bill must preserve certain online business‑filing data. \"The secretary of state's office serves as a repository for business filings and for uniform commercial code filings,\" Wiley said. \"S.126 contains an exception, from having to redact those records.\" She said registered‑agent information is publicly available through the office’s business filing system and a wholesale redaction could leave a business without a registered agent.

Margaret Bailey, register of deeds for Dorchester County and president of the South Carolina Association of Clerks of Court and Registers of Deeds, said county offices generally support the amendments but need more time to deploy software that will allow records to be restricted online and unresected for legitimate uses such as mortgage closings. \"We are in general favor of the amendments ... Most of our offices are gonna have to acquire software packages that will allow further restriction and or shielding of this information with the ability to then claw it back when they need to get a mortgage,\" Bailey said.

Julie Stutz, register of deeds for Aiken County, told the committee, \"We are not prepared to implement Act 56. We need S.126 to pass and to restrict the access.\" Testimony noted the bill clarifies that the restriction on disclosure of personal contact information applies to publicly available Internet websites operated by state or local government agencies; it also specifies that the information may be disclosed to title insurers, title insurance agencies, or attorneys in good standing with the South Carolina Bar. The bill limits liability for state and local government employees related to disclosure and directs the Office of Court Administration and the South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy to collaborate on a designated request form for officers and judges to request restricted access.

The bill sets an effective date of Jan. 1, 2026, in the draft discussed by the committee. Several county registers said implementation will require budgeted software purchases and procurement processes; one register said her county had set aside about $20,000 as a down payment toward a software solution.

With no amendments offered in committee, members recorded aye votes on a motion to report S.126 to the full Judiciary Committee.

Committee members said they appreciated stakeholder collaboration across state agencies, clerk and register offices, and county associations during drafting and encouraged the full committee consideration to continue that engagement.","mediaType","Audio","parentTitle","House Judiciary Committee -- Judiciary Constitutional Laws Subcommittee March 27, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The panel voted to report S.126, which narrows disclosure of personal contact information for judges and law‑enforcement officers on government websites, establishes a standard request form and allows certain professional exceptions, with a delayed effective date to give counties time to implement software.","taxTitle","Judiciary, Standing, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative, South Carolina","taxId",17507,"location","South Carolina","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":50,"_51":82,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":83,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":84,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6103274,"Panel advances bill to convert several at‑large circuit court judgeships into resident seats",464,208000,672000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2798325-deb8b3d1927e0487cb41cfda1cb2923f&start=208&end=672","/articles/6103274/South-Carolina/Panel-advances-bill-to-convert-several-atlarge-circuit-court-judgeships-into-resident-seats","The Constitutional Law Subcommittee voted to adopt an amendment and to report H.4160 after hearing testimony from a representative of the state’s chief justice who said the change is intended to expand geographic diversity and address areas with few lawyers.

The subcommittee’s chairman said the original bill would convert five of the state’s 16 at‑large circuit court judgeships into resident seats; after discussion with the chief justice the amendment broadened that change to convert a larger number of at‑large seats. Chairman Newton said the measure would not displace any sitting judges.

Miss Turner, speaking on behalf of Chief Justice Kitteridge, told the committee the recommendation rests on three factors: court filing and population “needs,” that the current seat holder resides in the circuit where a resident seat is warranted, and “a desire for all areas of our state, including the rural areas, to have fair opportunity for representation in the judiciary.” She described two themes the chief emphasizes: “geographic diversity and … legal deserts,” warning that lawyer concentration in urban centers risks leaving rural counties with far fewer legal resources.

\"If we maintain the system of at large judgeships and get not convert these seats to residents, we, we will be developing a system of judicial deserts,\" Miss Turner said.

Representative Mitchell and other members voiced support for addressing the backlog and access issues that can arise in rural counties when no resident judge is available. Chairman Newton described the amendment’s expansion in the committee record: \"The amendment, as originally prepared ... converted at large judgeships in the third, seventh, ninth, eleventh, [and] twelfth ... In further discussion with the chief ... converting 10 of the 16. So those additional circuits are the first, the fifth ... the twelfth and the thirteenth.\" (Transcript language retained as spoken.)

The committee adopted the Newton amendment by voice vote and then conducted a roll call on reporting the bill. Committee members present recorded aye votes and the subcommittee ordered the bill favorably reported to the full Judiciary Committee.

The bill and its amendment draw on the chief justice’s office’s assessment of local court workloads, population changes and the distribution of lawyers, and proponents said converting seats to resident judgeships would encourage judicial candidates from smaller counties and reduce statewide political contests for trial court seats.

The subcommittee chair said the committee’s archived video stream briefly failed but was being corrected and the meeting recording would be preserved for public record.

With the amendment adopted and the favorable report ordered, H.4160 will be before the full Judiciary Committee at its next scheduled meeting.","A constitutional law subcommittee voted to adopt an amendment expanding a bill that would convert a portion of the state's at‑large circuit court judgeships into resident seats, a change sponsors say would address geographic inequities and so‑called \"legal deserts.\"","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Subcommittee advances bill to limit public posting of judges’ and law‑enforcement contact information

Panel advances bill to convert several at‑large circuit court judgeships into resident seats