Printed Page 1570, Mar. 9
| Printed Page 1590, Mar. 14
|
Printed Page 1570, Mar. 9
| Printed Page 1590, Mar. 14
| Rep. W. JEFFREY YOUNG
Rep. HARWELL moved that the House do now adjourn, which was adopted.
The Senate returned to the House with concurrence the following:
H. 3700 -- Reps. Harrison and Wilkins: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO INVITE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT, THE HONORABLE ERNEST A. FINNEY, JR., TO ADDRESS THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN JOINT SESSION ON THE STATE OF THE JUDICIARY AT 12:30 P.M. ON TUESDAY, MARCH 14, 1995.
H. 3762 -- Rep. Harvin: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION CONGRATULATING RICHARD P. "RICK" FELDER, III, OF COLUMBIA ON RECEIVING THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES' DIVISION OF LAND RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION DISTRICTS 1994 OUTSTANDING DIVISION EMPLOYEE AWARD AND THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES MERITORIOUS SERVICE AWARD.
Indicates Matter Stricken
Indicates New Matter
The House assembled at 12:00 Noon.
Deliberations were opened with prayer by the Chaplain of the House of Representatives, the Rev. Dr. Alton C. Clark as follows:
Almighty, allseeing God, under Whose watch and care we live and work, when we count and consider the abundance of Your blessings, we humbly acknowledge how small and shallow are our minds to adequately thank You. Expand our thinking with a great appreciation of blessings continually bestowed upon us regardless of how unworthy and undeserving we are. Give a full measure of wisdom and dedication to the members of this Legislative Body, and those related to the work here, that together we may carry the tasks which at times weigh so heavily.
Hear, Lord, this prayer offered in praise and thanksgiving. Amen.
Pursuant to Rule 6.3, the House of Representatives was led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America by the SPEAKER.
After corrections to the Journal of the proceedings of Thursday, the SPEAKER ordered it confirmed.
Rep. J. BROWN moved that when the House adjourns, it adjourn in memory of
Bishop Joseph Bethea of Columbia, which was agreed to.
The following was received.
March 6, 1995
Dear Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
I am transmitting herewith an appointment for confirmation. This appointment is made with the advice and consent of the General Assembly, and is therefore submitted for your consideration.
Respectfully,
David M. Beasley
Governor
Initial Appointment, State Ethics Commission, with term to commence June 30, 1993, and to expire June 30, 1998:
At-Large:
Mr. Richard Vance Davis, 117 Hialeah Road, Greenville, S.C. 29607 VICE John S. Simmons (resigned)
The SPEAKER ordered the appointment confirmation referred to the Judiciary Committee.
The following was received.
Columbia, S.C., March 9, 1995
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has overridden
the veto by the Governor on R. 11, S. 474 by a vote of 45 to 0.
(R11) S. 474 -- Senator Holland: AN ACT TO DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION TO REMOVE FROM THE STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM A PORTION OF
SECONDARY
ROAD S28-539 IN KERSHAW COUNTY.
Very respectfully,
President
The following was received.
Columbia, S.C., March 9, 1995
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has overridden the veto by the Governor on R. 3, S. 334 by a vote of 45 to 0.
(R3) S. 334 -- Senators McGill, Glover and Leatherman: AN ACT TO AMEND
ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 31, TITLE 33, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING
TO NONPROFIT CORPORATIONS LOCATED IN FLORENCE COUNTY, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE
FORMER BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF A DISSOLVED NONPROFIT CORPORATION OR
ELEEMOSYNARY
ORGANIZATION TO DISTRIBUTE THE REMAINING ASSETS OF THE ORGANIZATION AND TO
PROVIDE THAT EFFECTIVE TWO YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ACT, IF SUCH
DISTRIBUTION IS NOT ACCOMPLISHED WITHIN FIVE YEARS OF DISSOLUTION, THE
REMAINING
ASSETS ESCHEAT TO THE STATE.
Very respectfully,
President
Rep. HASKINS moved to adjourn debate upon the veto message, which was adopted.
Judicial candidates are not free to seek or accept commitments until Tuesday,
March 14, 1995, at 12:00 noon.
The Joint Committee found all the candidates included in this report to be legally qualified for judicial office. All other findings are detailed in the attached report. Any candidate with an "*" indicated in the following charts denotes the Joint Committee's expression of concern over that candidate with respect to a particular evaluative criteria.
Candidate: Anderson
Practice & Procedure Score: 3.38
Candidate: Burnett
Practice & Procedure Score: 2.76
Compliance with Canons[1]: *
Candidate: Pleicones
Practice & Procedure Score: 3.06
Candidate: Pyle
Practice & Procedure Score: 3.0
Candidate: Ervin
Practice & Procedure Score: 2.4
Candidate: Goolsby
Practice & Procedure Score: 3.6
Candidate: Hagood
Practice & Procedure Score: 2.6
Candidate: Hearn
Practice & Procedure Score: 2.1
Candidate: Stilwell
Practice & Procedure Score: 2.73
Candidate: Brogdon
Practice & Procedure Score: 2.0
Knowledge of Canons: *
Experience: *
Candidate: Clifford
Practice & Procedure Score: 2.71
Candidate: Cole
Practice & Procedure Score: 2.0
Candidate: DuTremble
Practice & Procedure Score: 2.86
Candidate: Hall
Practice & Procedure Score: 3.0
Candidate: Harwell
Practice & Procedure Score: 1.4
Knowledge of Canons: *
Legal Abililty : *
Experience: *
Candidate: Kinard
Practice & Procedure Score: 3.5
Candidate: Martin
Practice & Procedure Score: 1.0
Compliance with Canons[1]: *
Legal Abililty : *
Experience: *
Temperament: *
Candidate: Lee
Practice & Procedure Score: 2.89
Candidate: Stevens
Practice & Procedure Score: 3.35
Candidate: Wiggins
Practice & Procedure Score: 1.4
Legal Abililty : *
Experience: *
Temperament: *
The Joint Legislative Committee for Judicial Screening is charged by law to consider the qualifications of candidates for the judiciary. South Carolina Code Section 2-19-30 provides that the Joint Committee must render findings as to whether each candidate is qualified for service on the bench, but does not permit the Joint Committee to specify degrees of qualification.
The Joint Committee found that all candidates treated in this report are legally qualified for service on the bench. Section 15, Article V of the South Carolina Constitution provides that judges of the appellate and circuit courts must be:
(1) citizens of the United States and of South Carolina;
(2) at least twenty-six years old;
(3) licensed attorneys who have been licensed for at least five years; and
(4) residents of South Carolina for at least five years immediately
preceding the election.
South Carolina Code Section 1-23-520 provides that judges of the Administrative
Law Judge Division must also meet these eligibility requirements. The Joint
Committee's finding that a candidate is legally qualified means that the
candidate meets these legal criteria for judicial office. This report details
each candidate's qualifications as they relate to the Joint Committee's nine
evaluative criteria.
The Joint Committee conducts a thorough investigation of each candidate's professional, personal, and financial affairs, and holds public hearings during which it questions each candidate on a wide variety of issues. The Joint Committee's investigation focuses on nine evaluative criteria. These evaluative criteria are: integrity and impartiality; legal knowledge and ability; professional experience; judicial temperament; diligence and industry; mental and physical capabilities; financial responsibilities; public service; and ethics. The Joint Committee's investigation includes the following:
(1) survey of the bench and bar;
(2) SLED and FBI investigation;
(3) credit investigation;
(4) grievance investigation;
(5) study of application materials;
(6) verification of ethics compliance;
(7) search of newspaper articles;
(8) conflict of interest investigation;
(9) court schedule study;
(11) court observation; and
(12) investigation of complaints.
While the law provides that the Joint Committee is to make findings as to qualifications, the Joint Committee views its role as also including an obligation to consider candidates in the context of the judiciary on which, if elected, they will serve and, to some degree, govern. To that end, the Joint Committee inquires as to the quality of justice delivered in the courtrooms of South Carolina and seeks to impart, through its questioning, the view of the public it represents as to matters of legal knowledge and ability, judicial temperament, and the absoluteness of the Judicial Canons as to recusal for conflict of interest, prohibition of ex parte communication, and the disallowance of the acceptance of gifts.
The Joint Committee expects each candidate to possess a basic level of legal knowledge and ability, to have experience that would be applicable to the office sought, and to exhibit a strong adherence to codes of ethical behavior. These expectations are all important and excellence in one category does not make up for deficiencies in another.
The Joint Committee does not expect candidates to know every aspect of the law, but believes that judges must possess a working knowledge of the basic issues of practice and procedure they encounter on the bench each day. Judges naturally make mistakes and encounter law with which they may not be familiar, but judges must have some basic level of knowledge in order to manage their courtrooms and reduce the risk of error. Trial court judges must not rely on appellate courts to correct procedural mistakes; they must do their jobs right the first time so that litigants are not subjected to the costs and delay of appeal.
In addition to possessing a basic level of legal knowledge and ability, candidates should have some experience applicable to the offices they seek. The Joint Committee recognizes that the practice of law today requires many lawyers to specialize or at least focus their practice on a few aspects of the law. With that in mind, the Joint Committee expects that candidates may have much more experience in one area of the law than in others. Therefore, it is not terribly important that a candidate have very broad experience, but is essential that the candidate have practiced in an area of the law with a level of sophistication such that the candidate has experience with the type of issues encountered if elected to the bench.
A sense of fairness and compassion are also important qualities in a judge. The Joint Committee expects candidates to have strictly followed all ethical rules including the Rules of Professional Conduct governing attorneys practicing in South Carolina, the Code of Judicial Conduct
The Joint Committee's Chairman believed it was also important for candidates to understand separation of powers principles and the role of the judiciary in relationship to the General Assembly. In that regard, he asked candidates questions about the presumption of constitutionality to be afforded the laws of the General Assembly, the validity of the death penalty, whether or not it would be appropriate for the judicial branch to order the General Assembly to appropriate or expend funds, and the political abstention doctrine.
The Joint Committee is constantly seeking to improve its screening process, and towards that end has made four significant changes this year. The first change is that all candidates were asked questions about practice and procedure to ensure that they were conversant in basic principles that judges encounter on the bench every day. The questions were tailored to the seat for which the candidate is offering; for example, administrative law judge candidates were asked questions about the Administrative Law Judge Division procedure and the Administrative Procedures Act.
The Joint Committee has carefully analyzed each candidate's responses to these practice and procedure questions and has scored them as follows:
(1) The candidate received 4 points for each answer that was a clear, concise, correct response that demonstrated knowledge of the general rules and exceptions and was more than a textbook response in that it included citations to the law on point or otherwise demonstrated expansive knowledge of the law.
(2) The candidate received 3 points for each answer that was a clear, concise, correct response that demonstrated knowledge of the general rules and exceptions.
(3) The candidate received 2 points for each answer that was a generally correct and clear response.
(4) The candidate received 1 point for each answer that was a rambling response having some relationship to the general area of the law pertaining to the questions or was a correct response after substantial assistance from the questioner.
(5) The candidate received no points for questions to which there was no
response or a response having very little relationship to the general
area of law that was the subject of the question.
This report also describes the type of questions each candidate was asked so
that the reader can make an independent evaluation of the candidate's
performance.
The third change relates to the manner in which the Joint Committee accepts testimony. The Joint Committee accepts testimony in two ways. In both cases the witness must file an affidavit with the Joint Committee forty-eight hours prior to the public hearing so that the candidate and the Joint Committee have advance notice of the nature of the testimony. The first option is for affiants to voluntarily come forward and testify in public session. This is the traditional method, and it balances the need for a thorough investigation with the need to protect each candidate's rights. The second option is for affiants to contact the Joint Committee's legal staff and discuss proposed testimony in confidence. The legal staff knows the identity of the affiant, but conveys the affiant's comments to the Joint Committee, the candidate, and the public in the form of an affidavit identified only by a number. In other words, the confidential affiant's comments are considered in public session, but the affiant's identity is kept confidential except to members of the Joint Committee's legal staff. This method of testimony is used by the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee in the screening of candidates for the federal bench. This change was instituted to encourage persons with firsthand information to come forward. The Joint Committee received only one confidential affidavit, and the Joint Committee's two attorneys knew the identity of the affiant and relayed certain background information to the Joint Committee and the candidate.
The fourth change is that the Joint Committee has decided that it will not formally issue this report until copies of a draft report have been available for 48 hours. Candidates may not seek commitments until the report is formally issued. The Joint Committee's goal with this new procedure is to ensure that members of the General Assembly have a chance to read and consider the contents of the screening report before they are asked to commit to a candidate. This new procedure will improve the screening process by allowing legislators to make more informed decisions about which candidate to support.
This report is the culmination of several months of investigatory work and four weeks of public hearings. The Joint Committee takes its responsibilities very seriously as it believes that the quality of justice delivered in South Carolina's courtrooms is directly affected by the thoroughness of its screening process. Please carefully consider the
Printed Page 1570, Mar. 9
| Printed Page 1590, Mar. 14
|