Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Judicial Selection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances bill shifting JMSC appointments to governor amid heated debate on DEI and separation of powers
Summary
Lawmakers advanced H.4755 to transfer Judicial Merit Selection Commission appointment authority to the governor and remove DEI considerations; the measure prompted extensive debate over separation of powers, bench diversity and potential executive influence. S.336 (setting March judicial election day) also received a favorable report.
A House committee on Thursday forwarded a controversial bill, H.4755, that would move staffing and appointment authority for the Judicial Merit Selection Commission (JMSC) to the governor’s office and bar sitting General Assembly members and close relatives from serving on the commission.
Representative Jordan, reporting the bill, said the proposed commission would be 12 members, eight of whom must be members of the South Carolina Bar, and would limit law enforcement professionals to no more than four appointees. The bill also narrows JMSC’s discretion over public testimony and requires the JMSC to make transcripts freely available. Notably, H.4755 removes any consideration of "race, gender, color, religion, national origin" or other diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) criteria from the selection process and includes an effective date of Feb. 1, 2027.
The measure drew sustained criticism on multiple fronts. Representative Bamberg and others warned the change risks swapping perceived legislative bias for executive control and noted the bill does not bar solicitors, assistant attorneys general or other executive‑branch lawyers from serving. Representative King urged more sweeping reform, including popular elections for judges, and later accused outside donors of driving the current proposal; his amendment to allow popular elections was tabled on constitutional grounds under Article V, Section 3. Representative Bernstein, a practicing attorney, argued that popular election would politicize the judiciary and reduce impartiality. Representative Wetmore, Representative Robbins and others proposed compromise language and sector‑based nomination mechanisms to preserve diverse professional input.
The committee voted to report H.4755 favorably by roll call, 14‑7‑4. Jordan also secured a favorable report for S.336, a separate bill that would statutorily fix the date for judicial elections in March and require the Judicial Merit Selection Commission to release its final report at least 23 days before the election; S.336 passed 21‑0‑4.
Why it matters: H.4755 would reallocate appointment power for judicial screening and could reshape who is nominated for judgeships; critics say it risks concentrating influence in the executive branch and undermining efforts to ensure bench diversity. The bill will move to the House floor for additional debate and possible amendments.
