Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Magistrate Reform topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Subcommittee advances magistrate reform bill requiring JMSC review, lawyer magistrates and higher jurisdiction
Summary
The Constitutional Law Subcommittee voted to adopt an amendment and gave H.3530 a favorable report as amended, requiring Judicial Merit Selection Commission (JMSC) review of magistrate candidates, limiting holdover to 14 days, requiring magistrates be lawyers (with a 06/30/2026 grandfather date), and raising civil jurisdiction to $25,000.
The Constitutional Law Subcommittee on Friday advanced H.3530, a bill that would change how magistrates are selected and expand magistrate court jurisdiction in South Carolina.
Chairman Newton told the panel the bill would require the Senate to forward magistrate candidates to the Judicial Merit Selection Commission for review and that "no person found not qualified by JMSC may be appointed as a magistrate in South Carolina." The measure would also end open-ended holdover by limiting a magistrate's holdover capacity to 14 days after a term expires and would bar appointment or reappointment of any magistrate reprimanded by the Supreme Court or other disciplinary authority without a majority Senate approval.
An amendment adopted by voice vote updated the grandfather date for nonlawyer magistrates to June 30, 2026, added limited discovery in civil magistrate cases (limited to potential witnesses, disclosure of records and self-authenticating medical records and bills) and delayed jurisdictional increases: the civil-jurisdiction increase takes effect July 1, 2028, and the criminal-jurisdiction increase takes effect July 1, 2030. Chairman Newton summarized the amendment as changing the grandfather date, adding limited discovery, and pushing the effective dates.
Public commenters supported the bill while raising practical concerns. Miss Laura Hudson said she "rises to approve this bill" but warned that raising jurisdiction to $25,000 "also raises that which restitution can be afforded to a crime victim," adding magistrates often lack staff and systems to process restitution. Hudson urged reinstating the advisory council created under statute 22-1-19 to improve magistrate education and oversight, saying the committee's prior test found many sitting magistrates lacked necessary knowledge.
An unidentified representative of the League of Women Voters told the subcommittee the organization "very much supports this bill," citing overdue corrections, better evaluations and the need to end prolonged holdover.
Representative Mitchell, speaking for a largely rural constituency, said he supported the reforms but worried about rural counties with few attorneys and described a proposal he filed this year that would require at least one attorney magistrate in each county so that less-experienced magistrates would have an on-site legal resource.
On a roll call ordered by the chair, the subcommittee reported H.3530 as amended favorably; the chair announced "a favorable report with 3 in favor and 2 not voting." The record shows Representatives Jordan, Mitchell and Newton answered "Aye." The transcript does not record full individual votes for the two not voting.
The subcommittee's action forwards the measure in the legislative process with the amendment adopted; no final Senate or House floor action is recorded in the subcommittee transcript.
