| Printed Page 840, Mar. 9 | Printed Page 860, Mar. 14 |

S. 207 -- Senator Wilson: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 7-17-280, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO MANDATORY RECOUNTS IN PRIMARIES AND GENERAL ELECTIONS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE CANVASSING AGENCY SHALL GIVE PRIORITY IN THE RECOUNT TO SPECIFIC PRECINCTS IF ONE OF THE AFFECTED CANDIDATES FOR REASONABLE CAUSE SO REQUESTS.

The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill. The question being the adoption of the amendment proposed by the Committee on Judiciary.

The Judiciary Committee proposed the following amendment (JUD0207.002), which was adopted:

Amend the bill, as and if amended, page 1, line 38, in Section 7-17-280, as contained in SECTION 1, by striking /shall/ and inserting therein /may/.

Amend title to conform.

Senator COURTNEY explained the amendment.

On motion of Senator COURTNEY, the Bill was carried over.

S. 340 -- Senator Elliott: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION URGING THE CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION OF THIS STATE TO PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, FOR RATIFICATION BY THE STATES, SPECIFYING THAT CONGRESS AND THE STATES SHALL HAVE THE POWER, CONSISTENT WITH THE AMERICAN LEGAL SYSTEM OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, TO PROHIBIT WANTON DESTRUCTION OF THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

The Concurrent Resolution was adopted, ordered sent to the House.

H. 3593 -- Rep. McMahand: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO INSTALL AN ELECTRONIC TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT THE INTERSECTION OF

On motion of Senator J. VERNE SMITH, the Resolution was referred to the Greenville Delegation.

THE CALL OF THE UNCONTESTED CALENDAR HAVING BEEN COMPLETED, THE SENATE PROCEEDED TO THE INTERRUPTED DEBATE.

S. 41 -- Senators Courson, Rose, Giese, Gregory, Wilson, Elliott and Richter: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 17-25-45, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO A LIFE SENTENCE FOR A PERSON WHO HAS THREE CONVICTIONS FOR CERTAIN CRIMES, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR A MANDATORY SENTENCE OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT WITHOUT PAROLE UPON A THIRD CONVICTION OF A "MOST SERIOUS OFFENSE", TO DEFINE "MOST SERIOUS OFFENSE", AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE APPLICATION OF THIS SECTION.

The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill. The question being the adoption of Amendment No. 2 (JUD0041.008), proposed by Senator McCONNELL and previously printed in the Journal of Wednesday, March 1, 1995.

Senator COURSON spoke on the Bill.

With Senator COURSON retaining the floor, Senator STILWELL asked unanimous consent to make a motion that the Senate stand adjourned.

Debate was interrupted by adjournment, Senator COURSON retaining the floor.

By prior motion of Senator COURTNEY of Thursday, February 9, 1995, the Senate agreed that, when the Senate stands adjourned on Thursdays in statewide session, it stand adjourned to reconvene on Fridays at 11:00 A.M., under the provisions of Rule 1 for the purpose of taking up local matters and uncontested matters which have previously received unanimous consent to be taken up; and that when the Senate stands adjourned on Fridays, that it stand adjourned to reconvene on Tuesdays at 12:00 Noon.

At 11:45 A.M., on motion of Senator STILWELL, the Senate adjourned to meet tomorrow at 11:00 A.M. under the provisions of Rule 1 for the purpose of taking up local matters and uncontested matters which have previously received unanimous consent to be taken up.

Indicates Matter Stricken
Indicates New Matter

The Senate assembled at 11:00 A.M., the hour to which it stood adjourned and was called to order by the ACTING PRESIDENT, Senator GIESE.

The following Joint Resolution was read the third time and ordered sent to the House of Representatives:

S. 624 -- Judiciary Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION, RELATING TO APPLICATIONS FOR SELF-INSURANCE, DESIGNATED AS REGULATION DOCUMENT NUMBER 1842, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE.

(By prior motion of Senator STILWELL, with unanimous consent)

At 11:24 A.M., on motion of Senator COURSON, the Senate adjourned to meet next Tuesday, March 14, 1995, at 12:00 Noon.

Indicates Matter Stricken
Indicates New Matter

The Senate assembled at 12:00 Noon, the hour to which it stood adjourned and was called to order by the PRESIDENT.

A quorum being present the proceedings were opened with a devotion by the Chaplain as follows:

Beloved, hear the words of St. Paul to the Philippians (NRSV) (2:12-13):

"Therefore, my beloved... work out

your own salvation with fear and trembling;

for it is God who is at work in you, en-

abling you both to will and to work for

His good pleasure."
Let us pray.

Our heavenly Father, as our Governor and his team travel to the Pacific rim to establish goodwill and mutual trade with our global neighbors, we do not hesitate to pray for the success of an "economic mission" because You taught us in Our Lord's Prayer to pray:

"Give us this day our daily bread." So, we pray Your blessing upon our Governor and his team as they lead us to work out our own economic and political as well as spiritual salvation with "fear and trembling" as St. Paul exhorted the Philippians.

You have brought us, O Lord, to this time and place. Enlarge our horizons and equip us for our stewardship in making our world a neighborhood of friends concerned about each other... in the Name and Spirit of Him who said, "Behold, I call you friends."

Amen.

Senator GIESE made the point that a quorum was not present. It was ascertained that a quorum was not present.

Senator GIESE moved that a call of the Senate be made. The following Senators answered the call:

Alexander         Bryan            Cork

Courson           Courtney         Drummond

Elliott           Ford             Giese

Glover            Hayes            Jackson



Printed Page 855 . . . . . Tuesday, March 14,
1995

Land               LanderLeatherman

Leventis          Martin           McConnell

McGill            Mescher          Moore

Passailaigue      Peeler           Reese

Richter           Rose             Russell

Ryberg            Saleeby          Short

Smith, G.         Smith, J.V.      Stilwell

Thomas            Waldrep          Washington

Williams          Wilson

A quorum being present, the Senate resumed.

On motion of Senator McCONNELL, with unanimous consent, the Report of the Judicial Screening Committee was ordered printed in the Journal of Tuesday, March 14, 1995.

Pursuant to Section 2-19-30 copies of the complete transcript shall be permanently retained by the Clerk of the Senate and available to members upon request.

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: Burnett
Practice & Procedure Score: 2.76
Compliance with Canons[1]: *

[1] "Compliance with Canons" is an indication about whether the candidate has complied with the applicable canons of conduct which govern attorneys and judges.

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 Ability: *
Experience: *

Candidate: Kinard
Practice & Procedure Score: 3.5

Candidate: Martin
Practice & Procedure Score: 1.0
Compliance with Canons[2]: *
Legal Ability: *
Experience: *
Temperament: *

[2] "Compliance with Canons" is an indication about whether the candidate has complied with the applicable canons of conduct which govern attorneys and judges.

Candidate: Lee
Practice & Procedure Score: 2.89

Candidate: Stevens
Practice & Procedure Score: 3.35

Candidate: Wiggins
Practice & Procedure Score: 1.4
Legal Ability: *
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

(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;

(10) study of appellate record;

(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.

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 regulating the activities of all judges in South Carolina, and the more generally accepted, but unwritten, rules of fairness and respect which should govern interaction among all of this state's citizens.

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.

| Printed Page 840, Mar. 9 | Printed Page 860, Mar. 14 |

This web page was last updated on Monday, June 29, 2009 at 2:12 P.M.