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 words from the Epistle to the Hebrews, Chapter 12 (12-14):

"Therefore lift your drooping hands, and strengthen your weak knees... Strive for peace with all men..."
Let us pray.

Our Heavenly Father, we continue a nation's prayers of gratitude for the life, the labors and the legacy of Your servant, Martin Luther King, Jr. Help us to add practice to our prayers as we honor the man who said, " I have a dream." So help us all to share the spirit of St. John when he said, again... and again... and again: "Little children, love one another."

And Father, we pray your special blessings of joy and healing upon Your servant, our friend, former Senator HYMAN RUBIN, as he celebrates today, his 90th birthday and to his dear wife, Rose, as she recovers from serious surgery yesterday.

Glory to God, in whose Name we pray!
Amen.

The PRESIDENT called for Petitions, Memorials, Presentments of Grand Juries and such like papers.

TO:       The Clerk of the Senate

The Clerk of the House
FROM:   Glenn F. McConnell, Chairman
DATE:     January 16, 2003

In compliance with the provisions of Act No. 119, 1975 S.C. Acts 122, it is respectfully requested that the following information be printed in the Journals of the Senate and the House.

Date Draft Report Issued:             Thursday, January 16, 2003
Date and Time Final Report Issued:     Tuesday, January 21, 2003, at 10:00 a.m.
Judicial candidates are not free to seek or accept commitments until Tuesday, January 21, 2003 at 10:00 a.m.

The Judicial Merit Selection Commission is charged by law to consider the qualifications of candidates for the judiciary. This report details the reasons for the Commission's findings, as well as each candidate's qualifications as they relate to the Commission's evaluative criteria. The Commission operates under the law which went into effect July 1, 1997, and which dramatically changed the powers and duties of the Commission. One component of this law is that the Commission's finding of "qualified" or "not qualified" is binding on the General Assembly. The Commission is also cognizant of the need for members of the General Assembly to be able to differentiate between candidates and, therefore, has attempted to provide as detailed a report as possible.

The Judicial Merit Selection Commission is composed of ten members, four of whom are non-legislators. The Commission has continued the more in-depth screening format started in 1997. The Commission has asked candidates their views on issues peculiar to service on the court to which they seek election. These questions were posed in an effort to provide members of the General Assembly with

The Commission also used the Citizens Committees on Judicial Qualifications as an adjunct of the Commission. Since the decisions of our judiciary play such an important role in people's personal and professional lives, the Commission believes that all South Carolinians should have a voice in the selection of the state's judges. It was this desire for broad-based grassroots participation that led the Commission to create the Citizens Committees on Judicial Qualifications. These committees, composed of people from a broad range of experience (doctors, lawyers, teachers, businessmen, and advocates for varied organizations; members of these committees are also diverse in their racial and gender backgrounds), were asked to advise the Commission on the judicial candidates in their regions. Each regional committee interviewed the candidates from its assigned area and also interviewed other individuals in that region who were familiar with the candidate either personally or professionally. Based on those interviews and its own investigation, each committee (except the Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee) provided the Commission with a report on their assigned candidates based on the Commission's evaluative criteria.   The Commission then used these reports as a tool for further investigation of the candidate if the committee's report so warranted. Summaries of these reports, except as noted above, have also been included in the Commission's report for your review.

The Commission conducts a thorough investigation of each candidate's professional, personal, and financial affairs, and holds public hearings during which each candidate is questioned on a wide variety of issues. The Commission's investigation focuses on the following evaluative criteria: constitutional qualifications; ethical fitness; professional and academic ability; character; reputation; physical health; mental health; and judicial temperament. The Commission's investigation includes the following:
(1)   survey of the bench and bar;
(2)   SLED and FBI investigation;
(3)   credit investigation;

(12)   investigation of complaints.

While the law provides that the Commission must make findings as to qualifications, the Commission views its role as also including an obligation to consider candidates in the context of the judiciary on which they would serve and, to some degree, govern. To that end, the Commission 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 as to matters of legal knowledge and ability, judicial temperament, and the absoluteness of the Judicial Canons of Conduct as to recusal for conflict of interest, prohibition of ex parte communication, and the disallowance of the acceptance of gifts. However, the Commission is not a forum for reviewing the individual decisions of the state's judicial system absent credible allegations of a candidate's violations of the Judicial Canons of Conduct, the Rules of Professional Conduct, or any of the Commission's nine evaluative criteria that would impact on a candidate's fitness for judicial service.

The Commission 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.

Routine questions related to compliance with ethical Canons governing ethics and financial interests are now administered through a written questionnaire mailed to candidates and completed by them in advance of each candidate's staff interview. These issues were no longer automatically made a part of the public hearing process unless a concern or question was raised during the investigation of the candidate. The necessary public record of a candidate's pledge to uphold the canons, etc. is his completed and sworn questionnaire.

Written examinations of the candidates' knowledge of judicial practice and procedure were given at the time of candidate interviews

This report is the culmination of weeks of investigatory work and public hearings. The Commission takes its responsibilities 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 contents of this report as we believe it will help you make a more informed decision.

This report conveys the Commission's findings as to the qualifications of all candidates currently offering for election to the Court of Appeals, the Circuit Court, and the Administrative Law Judge Division.

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED, BUT NOT NOMINATED

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Anderson meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Judge Anderson was born on October 13, 1959. He is 43 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Judge Anderson provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1984.

(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Anderson.
Judge Anderson demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Anderson reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Anderson testified he has not:

(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;

(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Anderson testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.

(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Judge Anderson to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Anderson described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"During my service as a S.C. Assistant Attorney General, I focused my continuing legal education on trial advocacy, criminal law and administrative law. Since being elected an Administrative Law Judge, I have focused on administrative law, procedure and evidence."
Judge Anderson reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:

"(a)   S.C. CLE, 'Hiring and Firing' (Lectured on employment law);

(b)   S.C. CLE, 'Ethics Act' (Lectured on the Ethics Act);

(c)   Supreme Court Staff (Lectured on the Ethics Act);

(d)   Bridge the Gap, Administrative Law;

(e)   SCARLA, S.C. Const., Art. I, Section 22."
Judge Anderson reported that he has published the following:

"(a)   'A Survey on Attributes Considered Important for Presidential Candidates,' Carolina Undergraduate Sociology Symposium, April 17, 1980;

(b)   'An Overview of Practice and Procedure Before the Administrative Law Judge Division,' South Carolina Trial Lawyer, Summer 1996."

(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Anderson did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Anderson did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Anderson has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Judge Anderson was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.

(5)   Reputation:
Judge Anderson reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."

Judge Anderson reported that other than administrative law judge, he has held the public office of Assistant Attorney General. He was appointed to that position and served from 1985-1995.

(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Anderson appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge Anderson appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(8)   Experience:
Judge Anderson was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1984.

He reported the following legal experience since graduation from law school:

"I began my legal career at the South Carolina Attorney General's Office. My initial responsibilities at the Attorney General's Office were the extradition functions in the Criminal Division. Afterwards, I was transferred to the Criminal Prosecution Section, where I prosecuted criminal cases, as well as maintained my extradition duties. While in the Prosecution Section, I was also assigned the position as Counsel to the State Ethics Commission.

With the passage of the Statewide Grand Jury Act, I occupied two offices. One was located in the Prosecution Section while the other was in the Grand Jury Section. Once the Grand Jury was firmly established, I returned to the Government and Civil Litigation Division/Prosecution Section. There I resumed all of my original duties with the addition of the following:

1.   Committee Attorney for the State Employee Grievance Committee;

2.   Prosecutor for the Engineering and Land Surveyor's Board; and

3.   Medical Board Prosecutions, Attorney General Opinions and Criminal Appeals.

During my career at the Attorney General's office I prosecuted numerous criminal cases of all types and handled a wide variety of civil litigation.

On February 1, 1995, I began serving as an Administrative Law Judge. In that capacity I have handled a myriad of civil trial and appellate issues."
Judge Anderson reported the frequency of his court appearances prior to his election as an Administrative Law Judge as follows:

"(a)   Federal:   Infrequently;

(b)   State:     20 or more times a year."
Judge Anderson reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters prior to his election as an Administrative Law Judge as follows:

"(a)   Civil:     75%;

(b)   Criminal:   25%."
Judge Anderson reported the percentage of his practice in trial court prior to his election as an Administrative Law Judge as follows:

"(a)   Jury:     25%;

(b)   Non-jury:   75%."
Judge Anderson provided that he most often served as sole counsel prior to his election as an Administrative Law Judge.

The following is Judge Anderson's account of his five most significant litigated matters:

"(a)   State v. Dwight L. Bennett. This was a felony DUI case in which the victim lost the baby she was carrying and suffered horrible injuries. Although the defendant was convicted, this case was used as a legislative example as the need to increase the maximum felony DUI punishment.

(b)   Georgia v. Richard Daniel Starrett, aff'd., Richard Daniel Starrett v. William C. Wallace. Starrett was convicted of several crimes in South Carolina. Afterwards, Georgia sought his extradition in an attempt to convict him under the death penalty. Starrett's challenge to the Attorney General's Office authority to hold extradition hearings was denied.

(c)   State v. Michael Goings. Goings was a notorious City of Cayce police officer charged with assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature.

(d)   State v. Herbert Pearson and Terrance Singleton. The defendants in this case were accomplices in the armed robbery, attempted murder and murder of attendants at a gas station in Sumter, S.C.

(e)   State v. William Keith Victor. After the defendant was convicted of murder and kidnapping, he was given the death penalty. His case was later reversed on appeal and the prosecution was assumed

The following is Judge Anderson's account of five civil appeals he has personally handled:

"(a)   Bergin Moses Mosteller v. James R. Metts, S.C. Supreme Court, Not known when this case was decided;

(b)   Dennis G. Mitchell v. State of S.C., S.C. Supreme Court, Not known when this case was decided;

(c)   Ex Parte, Bobby M. Stichert v. Carroll Heath, S.C. Supreme Court, Decided August 29, 1985; 286 S.C. 456, 334 S.E.2d 282, 286 S.C. 456;

(d)   Patrick C. Lynn, et al. v. State of S.C., Supreme Court, Not known when this case was decided;

(e)   Paul David Tasker v. M.L. Brown, Jr. S.C. Supreme Court, Not known when this case was decided."

Judge Anderson additionally reported, "I handled several criminal appeals while serving as an Assistant Attorney General but I do not know the captions of those cases."

Regarding prior judicial positions, Judge Anderson reported:
"I was elected by the General Assembly to serve as an Administrative Law Judge, February 1, 1995 and have been serving continuously since that date. Administrative Law Judges preside over hearings, render decisions and issue orders in a broad range of administrative cases involving governmental agencies and private parties. The jurisdiction of the Division includes cases involving health, childcare, environmental, natural resource, insurance, alcoholic beverage, and tax issues, as well as other licensing matters. Additionally, pursuant to Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 527 S.E.2d 742 (2000), the Division now hears appeals from final decisions of the Department of Corrections in 'non-collateral' matters, i.e., matters in which an inmate does not challenge the validity of a conviction or sentence. The ALJs also possess certain equitable and contempt powers."

Judge Anderson reported the following five most significant orders or opinions:

"(a)   Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation, et al. v. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, 99-ALJ-07-0290-CC;

(b)   Democratic Reform at Big Creek, et al. v. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, et al., 98-ALJ-07-0556-CC;

(c)   South Carolina Department of Revenue, In Re: Proposed Regulation #117.190, 97-ALJ-17-0095-RH;

(d)   Edgemoor Community Action Association, et al. v. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control and J. Bruce Collins, 95-ALJ-07-0728-CC;

(e)   McNeil v. South Carolina Department of Corrections, 00-ALJ-04-00336-AP (September 5, 2001) (en banc)."

Judge Anderson reported that he ran unsuccessfully for the following judicial offices: "Administrative Law Judge, Seat 3 (February 23, 1994); Fifth Judicial Circuit Court, Seat 3 (May 24, 2000). I was found qualified and nominated but withdrew prior to election."

(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Anderson's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.

(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee did not report to the Commission on any judicial candidates during the screening process.
Judge Anderson provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
"Shandon Baptist Church."

The Commission, in finding Judge Anderson qualified, determined the candidate to be of excellent temperament and to possess the experience requisite for service as a Circuit Court Judge.

Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Judge Barber since his candidacy for re-election was uncontested and no complaints were received.

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Barber meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Judge Barber was born on December 20, 1943. He is 59 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Judge Barber provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1969.

(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Barber.
Judge Barber demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Barber reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Barber reported he has not:

(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;

(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Barber reported that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.

(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Judge Barber to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Barber described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"1998:   SCB Annual Criminal Law Update, 01/23/98, 6.5 hrs;

SCB Circuit Court Judges Associate Meeting, 05/13/98, 6 hrs;

SCCA Judicial Conference, 08/20/98, 8.25 hrs;
1999:     SCB Annual Criminal Law Update, 01/22/99, 7 hrs;

SCB Solo & Small Firm Practitioners Section-Business Valuation, 01/23/99, 3 hrs;

SCACJ Circuit Court Judges Meeting, 05/12/99, 6 hrs;

National Judicial College General Jurisdiction, 07/14/99, 82.75 hrs;

SCTLA 1999 Annual Convention, 08/5/99, 12 hrs;

SCCA Judicial Conference, 08/19/99, 7.25 hrs;
2000:     SCB Annual Criminal Conference, 01/21/00, 6 hrs;

SCACJ S.C. Circuit Court Judges Conference, 05/10/00, 6.5 hrs;

SCTLA Convention, 08/3/00, 12 hrs;

SCCA Annual Judicial Conference, 08/16/00, 7.75 hrs;

SCACJ S.C. Circuit Court Judges Conference, 05/9/01, 7.5 hrs;

SCB Hot Tips for the Criminal, 06/29/01, 1 hr, Speaker;

SCCA Judicial Conference, 08/23/01, 8.25 hrs;

JBOIC The New Federal Rules, 10/9/01, 1 hr;
2002:     SCB Annual Criminal Law Update, 01/25/02, 6 hrs, Speaker;

JBOIC Post 9/11 Legal Issues, 03/21/02, 1 hr."
Judge Barber reported the following regarding law-related courses he has taught:

"I was an instructor at the University of South Carolina College of Applied Science. I taught Business Law to undergraduate students which primarily covered contracts. I have participated in a number of legal seminars as a speaker on various topics."
Judge Barber reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.

(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Barber did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Barber did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Barber has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Judge Barber was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.

(5)   Reputation:
Judge Barber reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "AV."

Judge Barber reported that he served on Richland County Council from 1977 until 1986. This was an elected position. He also served on the Richland Memorial Hospital Board of Trustees from 1990 until 1994, a position to which he was appointed by Governor Carroll Campbell.

(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Barber appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge Barber appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(8)   Experience:
Judge Barber was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1969.

Judge Barber reported the following legal experience since graduation from law school:
"2/70-10/72:   United States Department of Justice, Internal Security Division, Washington, D.C.

Initially I was employed in the Foreign Agents Registration Section which had the responsibility for enforcing the Foreign Agents Registration Act. The work was primarily administrative and regulatory.

I then moved to the Special Litigation Section. The work involved grand jury, United States District Court and Circuit Court of Appeal practice throughout the United States. It was primarily a criminal practice arising out of anti-Vietnam war criminal activities by various individuals and groups. I also handled Selective Service evasion cases in various courts.

10/72-8/77: Law Office of Henry H. Edens, Columbia, South Carolina.

This was a two-person office which was primarily engaged in civil litigation practice, a substantial portion of which was workers' compensation, personal injury and domestic practice. We did   practice some criminal law.

8/77-6/97:     Todd & Barber, PC, Columbia, South Carolina (successor to the firm of Marchant, Bates, Todd & Barber)

I engaged in a practice of administrative, domestic, corporate, real estate and workers' compensation law.

7/97-present   :   S.C. Court Administration, Circuit Court Judge, Columbia, S.C."

The following is Judge Barber's account of prior judicial positions:
"Circuit Court Judge; July 1997-present; the highest general jurisdiction trial court in South Carolina"

The following is Judge Barber's account of significant orders:

"(a)       C. Dixon Lee, III, et al. v. South Carolina Department of Natural Resources;

(b)   State Farm Fire & Casualty Company v. Tuamafa Barrett, et al.;

(c)   Carolyn M. Taylor v. Wil Lou Gray Opportunity School, et al.;

(d)   Susan Olson v. Faculty House of Carolina, Inc., et al.;

(e)   J. Larry Faulkenberry v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company."

Judge Barber reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies:

"I ran unsuccessfully in the Democratic primary for the office of Lt. Governor in 1986. I ran unsuccessfully for At-Large Circuit Court Seat No. 13 in 1996."

(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Barber's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.

(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee did not submit a report on any candidate to the Commission during the screening process.
Judge Barber is married to Susan Preston Foster Barber. He has three children: Caroline Dill Barber (Deceased); Anna Rutherford Barber, age 13; and Susan Rezner Barber, age 11.
Judge Barber reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   Richland County Bar Association;

(b)   South Carolina Bar Association."
Judge Barber provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
"University of South Carolina Alumni Association."

Judge Barber additionally reported the following:

"I received the Order of the Palmetto, 1986. I was recipient of President's Cup for distinguished service to South Carolina Association of Counties, 1981. I was named honorary President of the South Carolina Association of Counties, 1986."

The Commission found Judge Barber to be qualified for continued service as a Circuit Court Judge.

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Barnette meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Mr. Barnette was born on June 20, 1963. He is 39 years old and a resident of Spartanburg, South Carolina. Mr. Barnette provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the

(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Barnette.
Mr. Barnette demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Mr. Barnette reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures other than those for travel and room and board.
Mr. Barnette testified he has not:

(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;

(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Mr. Barnette testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.

(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Mr. Barnette to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Barnette described his continuing legal education during the past five years as follows:

"(a)   Classes involving Criminal Law issues;

(b)   Classes involving evidence law and civil procedure issues;

(c)   Magistrate Judge Classes involving all types of legal issues."
Mr. Barnette reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:

"(a)   Co-teacher of the Evidence class of the Magistrate Orientation to new Magistrates from 1997 to 2002 for South Carolina Court Administration;

(b)   Criminal law matters for the South Carolina Commission on Prosecution Coordination since 1995."
Mr. Barnette reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.

(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Mr. Barnette did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Barnette did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Barnette has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Mr. Barnette was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.

(5)   Reputation:
Mr. Barnette reported that he is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.

(6)   Physical Health:
Mr. Barnette appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(7)   Mental Stability:
Mr. Barnette appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(8)   Experience:
Mr. Barnette was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1989.

Mr. Barnette provided the following account of his legal experience since graduating from law school:

"Seventh Judicial Circuit Solicitor's Office;   Principal Deputy Solicitor from January 2001 to present:

Prosecution of criminal cases;

Spartanburg County Magistrate Court Judge from July 1996 to January 2001:

From July 1996 to July 2000 handled the Civil Court involving Jury and Non-jury matters (about 90%) along with some Criminal Court Jury matters (about 10%). In July 2000 to January 2001, handled the Traffic Court Non-Jury matters (about 90%) as well as Criminal and Civil Court Jury matters (about 10%);

Assistant Solicitor, Seventh Judicial Circuit Solicitor's Office from January 1991 to July 1996:

Prosecution of criminal cases;

Associate, Warlick Law Office from June 1990 to December 1990:

General practice of law with civil litigation, criminal defense, and family law."

Mr. Barnette further provided:

"As the Principal Deputy Solicitor for the Seventh Judicial Circuit Solicitor's Office since January 2001, I have handled the following jury trials:

(a)   State v. John Fitzgerald Johnson, Indictment No. 00-GS-42-3930. Jury trial. Mr. Johnson was found guilty of Armed Robbery. Mr. Johnson received a Life Sentence from the Honorable J. Derham Cole on January 16, 2001.

(b)   State v. Zachery Figbig, Indictment No. 00-GS-42-2967. Jury trial. Mr. Figbig was tried for Criminal Domestic Violence of a High Aggravated Nature and was found guilty of Criminal Domestic Violence. Mr. Figbig received a 30-day sentence from the Honorable J. Derham Cole on January 31, 2001.

(c)   State v. James O'Neal Foster, Indictment Nos. 01-GS-42-421, 01-GS-42-423, 01-GS-42-428, and 01-GS-42-441.   Jury trial. Mr. Foster was found guilty of Kidnapping, Burglary 1st degree, Criminal Domestic Violence of a High and Aggravated Nature, and Resisting Arrest (assault). He received a 30-year sentence from the Honorable Don Beatty on March 1, 2001.

(e)   State v. Kenji Jerome Manning, Indictment Nos. 01-GS-42-1641 thru 01-GS-42-1643. Jury trial. Mr. Manning was found guilty of Murder and two counts of Assault With Intent to Kill. He received a 40-year sentence from the Honorable John C. Hayes, III on April 11, 2001.

(f)   State v. James Edward Hardin, Indictment Nos. 01-GS-42-1424 thru 01-GS-42-1430.   Jury trial. Mr. Hardin was found guilty of two counts of Armed   Robbery, two counts of Kidnapping, and two counts of Assault with   Intent to Kill. Mr. Hardin received a 30-year sentence from the Honorable J. Derham Cole on May 16, 2001.

(g)   State v. William Marion Mills, Indictment No. 01-GS-42-2052. Jury trial. Mr. Mills was found guilty of Burglary 1st degree and Pettit Larceny. Mr. Mills received a 20-year sentence from the Honorable J. Derham Cole on September 26, 2001.

(h)   State v. Jimmy Dodd, Jr., Indictment No. 01-GS-42-2428. Jury trial. Mr. Dodd was found guilty of Armed Robbery. Mr. Dodd received a life sentence from the Honorable J. Derham Cole on January 8, 2002.

(i)     State v. Leonard Lee Foster, Indictment No. 02-GS-11-142. Jury trial. Mr. Foster was found guilty of Felony DUI and Reckless Homicide. Mr. Foster received a 25-year sentence on the Felony DUI (Death) and a 10-year consecutive sentence on the

(j)     State v. Billy Ray Henson, Indictment No. 02-GS-42-826. Jury trial. Mr. Henson was found guilty of Armed Robbery and received a life sentence from the Honorable J. Derham Cole on June 1, 2002.

(k)   State v. Christopher Clarke Horton, Indictment No. 02-GS-42-1589. Jury trial. Mr. Horton was found guilty of Reckless Homicide and not guilty of Felony DUI (Death). Mr. Horton received a 10-year sentence from the Honorable Gary E. Clary on August 8, 2002.

(l)     State v. Ricky Dennis Gentry, Indictment Nos. 01-GS-42-1298, 01-GS-42-1299, 02-GS-42-4273, 02-GS-42-4274, 02-GS-42-4293,   and 02-GS-42-4294. Jury trial. Mr. Gentry was found guilty of Accessory Before the Fact of Armed Robbery and Accessory Before the Fact of Assault and Battery with Intent to Kill and not guilty of Murder, Assault and Battery with Intent to Kill, Armed Robbery, and Accessory Before the Fact of Murder. Mr. Gentry received a 30-year sentence for the Accessory Before the Fact of Armed Robbery and a 20-year sentence for the Accessory Before the Fact of ABWITK from the Honorable J. Derham Cole on September 13, 2002."

Mr. Barnette provided the following list of major cases that were handled and prepared for trial by him in which the defendants pled guilty prior to going to trial:

(a)   State v. Brian Keith Clyburn, Indictment Nos. 99-GS-42-1719 thru 99-GS-42-1721. Mr. Clyburn pled guilty to two counts of Kidnapping and one count of Criminal Sexual Conduct in front of the Honorable J. Derham Cole and received a 30-year sentence on January 18, 2001;

(b)   State v. Julio Cesar Alexander, Indictment Nos. 01-GS-42-718 and 01-GS-42-719. Mr. Alexander pled guilty to two counts of Felony DUI (Death) in front of the Honorable Gary E. Clary and received a 13-year sentence on August 6, 2001;

(c)   State v. Jamie Latroy Manning, Indictment Nos. 01-GS-42-1638 thru 01-GS-42-1640. Mr. Manning pled guilty to Accessory after the fact of Murder, two counts of Assault with Intent to Kill in front of the Honorable Gary E. Clary and received a 35-year sentence (all sentences were consecutive) on December 4, 2001;

(d)   State v. Warren Jones, Indictment Nos. 01-GS-42-2032 and 01-GS-42-2033. Mr. Jones pled guilty to Armed Robbery and

(e)   State v. Michael Chavis Osbey, Indictment Nos. 01-GS-42-1294 and 01-GS-42-1295. Mr. Osbey pled guilty to Murder and Assault and Battery with Intent to Kill in front of the Honorable J. Derham Cole and received a 40-year sentence on March 25, 2002."

Mr. Barnette provided the following list of jury trials that he tried with Solicitor Harold G. "Trey" Gowdy:

(a)   State v. Richard Bernard Moore, Indictment Nos. 00-GS-42-617, 00-GS-42-619, and 01-GS-42-2460.   Jury trial. Mr. Moore was found guilty of Murder, Armed Robbery, and Assault with Intent to Kill. He received a sentence of death by the jury and issued by the Honorable Gary E. Clary on October 22, 2001. Deputy Solicitor Donnie Willingham was also involved in this death penalty trial;

(b)   State v. Anthony Michael Owens, Indictment Nos. 01-GS-42-902 thru 01-GS-42-909. Jury trial. Mr. Owens was found guilty of three counts of Kidnapping, one count of Assault and Battery with Intent to Kill, and three counts of Assault with Intent to Kill. He received a life sentence from the Honorable J. Derham Cole on November 15, 2001;

(c)   State v. William C. Seich, Indictment No. 02-GS-42-374. Jury trial. Mr. Seich was found guilty of Murder. He received a life sentence from the Honorable J. Derham Cole on February 27, 2002."

Mr. Barnette reported that he has also been involved in the handling of bond hearings, trial motions, and developing the trial docket for the Solicitor's Office for General Sessions Court.

Mr. Barnette reported regarding civil court matters: "I was a Spartanburg County Magistrate Court Judge from July 1996 to January 2001. I was in charge of the Civil Division for four years from July 1996 to July 2000. I handled the Non-Jury Civil cases for the Spartanburg Magistrate Court as well as the Eviction actions, Claim and Delivery actions, and Default hearings. I also handled jury trials involving civil actions, as well as criminal cases assigned by the Chief Magistrate. I also issued arrest warrants, search warrants, held preliminary hearings, and held bond hearings on a limited basis."
Mr. Barnette reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Federal:   None;

(b)   State:     Daily."

"(a)   Civil:     From July 1996 to July 2000-90% as the Spartanburg County Magistrate Judge in charge of the Civil Division involving Non-jury and Jury matters. From July 2000 to January     2001-10% involving Jury trials involving civil matters;

(b)   Criminal:   From July 1996 to July 2000-10% as Spartanburg County Magistrate Court Judge involving Criminal trials, issuing of arrest warrants and search warrants, preliminary hearings, and bond hearings. From January 2001 to present-100% involving jury trials, motions, bonds, and the scheduling of Solicitor's Office matters in General Sessions Court;

(c)   Domestic:   None."
Mr. Barnette reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Jury:   30%;

(b)   Non-jury:   70%."
Mr. Barnette provided that he most often served as Chief Counsel.

The following is Mr. Barnette's account of his five most significant litigated matters:

"(a)   State v. Alonzo Mack, General Sessions Indictment No. 95-GS-42-2742. Mr. Mack was convicted of Murder and Possession of a Firearm during the Commission of a Violent Crime by a jury. The defendant was sentenced by the Honorable Paul Burch to a life sentence on the Murder conviction and five years on the Possession of a Firearm conviction on May 30, 1996. Mr. Mack had murdered Darren Wayne Thomas in the front of his apartment witnessed by his three-year-old daughter. Mr. Mack was not eligible for parole because of a previous conviction for trafficking cocaine;

(b)   State v. Letha L. Goode, General Sessions Indictment No. 94-GS-42-1613. Mrs. Goode was charged with Murder and was convicted of Voluntary Manslaughter by a jury for killing her husband, Robert Lee Goode, on Valentines Day (Feb. 14, 1994). Mrs. Goode was sentenced by the Honorable Sidney Floyd to 18 years on March 28, 1995. The issue of spousal abuse was used as a possible self-defense during the trial and it was a fairly new defense at the time of this trial;

(c)   State v. Leonard Lee Foster, General Sessions Indictment No. 02-GS-11-142. Mr. Foster was convicted of Felony DUI (Death) and Reckless Homicide by a jury for death of Cody Keeler (6 years old).

(d)   State v. Michael McCravy, General Sessions Indictment No. 90-GS-42-4110. Mr. McCravy was charged with Murder and was convicted of Voluntary Manslaughter by a jury. He was also involved with the murder of two other possible individuals in the State of New York and with another person in the State of South Carolina. He had no prior criminal record prior to his conviction in this trial. He received a sentence of 20 years from the Honorable James Lockemy on September 3, 1992;

(e)   State v. Anthony Michael Owens, General Sessions Indictment Nos. 01-GS-42-902 thru 01-GS-42-909.   Jury trial. Defendant was found guilty of three counts of Kidnapping, one count of Assault and Battery with Intent to Kill, and three counts of Assault with Intent to Kill- received a life sentence from the Honorable J. Derham Cole on November 15, 2001.   The defendant was one of the most dangerous individuals prosecuted in South Carolina and Georgia at that time. He had also been charged with Murder, Two Counts of Kidnapping, and Armed Robbery in the State of Georgia. He has also been charged with Kidnapping and Criminal Sexual Conduct in the 1st Degree in Orangeburg and Lexington counties, as well as Kidnapping and Armed Robbery in Laurens County."

Mr. Barnette reported that he has not personally handled any civil appeals.

Regarding prior judicial positions, Mr. Barnette reported:
"Appointed as a Spartanburg County Magistrate Court Judge from July 1996 to January 2001. The Magistrate Court has jurisdiction of Civil Matters up to $7,500.00, all landlord and tenants matters involving evictions and failure to pay rent, claim and delivery matters, all criminal matters up to 30 days and/or $500, Transfer Court involving all crimes transferred from the Court of General Sessions that carry up one year in prison and a $1,000.00 fine, bond hearings on all crimes that carry a sentence less than Life imprisonment, issuing arrest warrants, issuing search warrants, preliminary hearings and judicial sales."

Mr. Barnette provided the following list of significant orders:

"(a)   George T. Rammantanin v. McDaniel Leasing, Abed Armaly, and Kelly Harris, Spartanburg County Magistrate Court Case No. 97-13288. Affirmed on appeal in Spartanburg County Common Pleas Court Case No. 97-CP-42-2671 by the Honorable Henry F. Floyd;

(b)   Delbert Tangeman v. Barry and Alice Mallek, Spartanburg County Magistrate Court Case No. 99-10242. Affirmed on appeal in Spartanburg County Common Pleas Court Case No. 00-CP-42-1318 by the Honorable Gary E. Clary;

(c)   Marco Gambuzza v. Greg Godbout d/b/a Team Motorsports, Inc., Spartanburg County Magistrate Court Case No. 97-15268. Affirmed on appeal in Spartanburg County Common Pleas Court Case No. 98-CP-42-1783 by the Honorable Thomas J. Erwin;

(d)   Britton Norwood Ballenger v. Jeff D. Moss and Betty Ballenger v. Jeff D. Moss, Spartanburg County Magistrate Court Case No. 96-11177 affirmed on appeal in Spartanburg County Common Pleas Court Case No. 97-CP-42-760 by the Honorable Roger L. Couch;

(e)   Waylon M. and Gloria J. Sasser v. Jimmy L. Brock, Spartanburg County Magistrate Court Case No. 97-502. Affirmed on appeal in Spartanburg County Common Pleas Court Case No. 97-CP-42-1352 by the Honorable C. Victor Pyle, Jr."

Mr. Barnette reported that he has never held a public office other than judicial office. Mr. Barnette further provided that he has never been an unsuccessful candidate for elective, judicial, or other public office.

(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Mr. Barnette's temperament would be excellent.

(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Upstate Citizens Advisory Committee reported: "Mr. Barnette was found to be a most competent lawyer. His qualifications greatly exceed the expectations set forth in the evaluative criteria."
Mr. Barnette is married to Tina Mae Barnette. He has two children: Benjamin Joseph Barnette, age 9; and Kelsey Morgan Barnette, age 8.
Mr. Barnette reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   South Carolina Bar;

(b)   West Virginia Bar;

(c)   South Carolina Summary Judges Association."

"(a)   South Carolina Football Officials Association (SCFOA). Received the Carol Blackwell Award as District Two's outstanding official for the 2000 Football Season;

(b)   Member of the National Youth Sports Coaches Association (NYSCA);

(c)   Member of the Westminster Presbyterian Church in Spartanburg, South Carolina."

Mr. Barnette additionally reported that he was a member of the Commission on Judicial Conduct as a Magistrate from December 1997 to January 2001, and received the Greater Spartanburg Optimist Club award for excellence in prosecution for 2002.

The Commission noted that Mr. Barnette has a reputation for being professional, prepared and even-handed. He was found to be qualified for election to the Circuit Court bench.

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Beatty meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Court of Appeals.
Judge Beatty was born on April 29, 1952. He is 50 years old and a resident of Spartanburg, South Carolina. Judge Beatty provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1979.

(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Beatty.
Judge Beatty demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Beatty reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Beatty testified he has not:

(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;

(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Beatty testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.

(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Judge Beatty to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Beatty described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as exceeding the CLE requirement each year. He attended courses pertaining to the following areas: Criminal Law, Evidence, Civil Rights, and Financial Statements in the Courtroom.
Judge Beatty reported that he has taught Business Law at Limestone College.
Judge Beatty reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.

(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Beatty did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Beatty did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Beatty has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Judge Beatty was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.

(5)   Reputation:
Judge Beatty reported that he is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.

Judge Beatty reported the following regarding his military service: "1974-1976 U.S. Army (Active Duty); 1976-1981 Reserves; achieving the rank of Captain, and receiving an Honorable Discharge."

Judge Beatty stated that he was elected to the South Carolina House of Representatives and served from 1991 until 1995; he served on the Spartanburg City Council from 1989 until 1990.

(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Beatty appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge Beatty appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(8)   Experience:
Judge Beatty was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1979.

He provided the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:
"1979-1981:   Neighborhood Legal Assistance Program, Civil Practice;
1981-1989:     Sole practitioner, General Practice;
1989-1991:     Beatty, Vick & Tullis, General Practice;
1991-1995:     Beatty Law Firm, General Practice;
1995-Present:   Circuit Court Judge."
Judge Beatty reported the frequency of his court appearances prior to his election to the Circuit Court bench as follows:

"(a)   Federal:   infrequently;

(b)   State:     weekly."
Judge Beatty reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters prior to his election to the Circuit Court bench as follows:

"(a)   Civil:     40%;

(b)   Criminal:   30%;

(c)   Domestic:   30%."
Judge Beatty reported the percentage of his practice in trial court prior to his election to the Circuit Court bench as follows:

"(a)   Jury:     30%;

(b)   Non-jury:   70%."
Judge Beatty provided that he most often served as sole counsel prior to his election to the Circuit Court bench.

The following is Judge Beatty's account of his five most significant litigated matters:

"(a)   State v. Bates. A retarded man who could not read, count or handle his own affairs was accused of being the leader of a drug-dealing ring. The defendant was acquitted;

(b)   State v. Cunningham. Armed robbery of a motel. The identification of the defendant was obtained through a tainted line-up by the detective involved. The defendant was acquitted;

(c)   Chrysler Motor Credit v. Ferguson. Credit life insurance was sold to defendant's husband after full disclosure of heart condition. The decedent signed blank forms for salesman, salesman knowingly

(d)   State v. Mitchell Frazier. Informant charged as co-defendant in a drug trafficking case. State objected to severance of trials. Severance granted. Mr. Frazier was acquitted;

(e)   Harris v. Pentex. Workers compensation case wherein the claimant was persuaded by her supervisors not to file a claim. The statute of limitations was used as a defense when claim was filed. Claimant prevailed."

Judge Beatty has held the judicial position of Judge of the Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit from 1995 until present.

Judge Beatty listed the following orders as significant:

"(a)   Elliot v. Richland County, 327 S.C. 175;

(b)   Scott v. Porter, 340 S.C. 158, 530 S.E.2d 389;

(c)   Williams v. South Carolina Insurance Reserve, 2002-CP-42-841;

(d)   United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. DHEC, 2000 WL 33719670;

(e)   Nicholls and Barber v. Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC and City of Spartanburg and all other similarly situated, 2001-CP-42-3246."

(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Beatty's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.

(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Upstate Citizens Advisory Committee reported: "Judge Beatty is found to be a most competent and excellent jurist. His qualifications greatly exceed the expectations set forth in the evaluative criteria."
Judge Beatty is married to Angela Chestnut Beatty. He has three children: Brandon, age 23; Austine, age 13; and Morgan, age 9.
Judge Beatty reported that he was a member of the South Carolina Bar Association.
Judge Beatty reported that he was member of the Omega Psi Phi Fraternity.

The Commission, in finding the candidate qualified, determined that Judge Beatty was a good collaborator, possessed the proper judicial temperament, and was an independent voice from the bench.

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Buchan meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Court of Appeals.
Judge Buchan was born on September 26, 1952. She is 50 years old and a resident of Marion, South Carolina. Judge Buchan provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1980.

(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Buchan.
Judge Buchan demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Buchan reported that she has not made any campaign expenditures other than those for travel and room and board.
Judge Buchan testified she has not:

(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;

(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Buchan testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.

(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Judge Buchan to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Buchan described her continuing judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a)   Various seminars offered through S.C. Bar CLE;

(b)   Scientific Evidence course, Reno, Nevada."
Judge Buchan reported that she has taught the following law-related courses:

"(a)   Family Court Judges Annual Meeting, Computers in the Courtroom;

(b)   Speaker, Horry County Bar Family Court Annual Seminar, 1993;

(c)   Judge, various state and one national High School Mock Trial Competitions;

(d)   Speaker and co-panelist, various state and local Guardian ad Litem training seminars;

(e)   Bridge the Gap, 1996, Handling Family Court Appointments;

(f)   Chief Judges' Seminar, 1997, Scheduling Problems and Conflicts;

(g)   Family Court Judges Annual Meeting, 1998, Race and Gender Sensitive Issues;

(h)   South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association, co-panelist, 1998, Valuation of a Professional Practice;

(i)     Family Court Judges Annual Meeting, 1999, Post-Trial Motions in Juvenile Hearings;

(j)     Children's Law Office, CLE, 2000, Handling Court Appointments in Family Court;

(k)   Family Court Judges Annual Meeting, 2000, general facilitator."
Judge Buchan reported that she has not published any books and/or articles.

(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Buchan did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Judge Buchan did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Buchan has handled her financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Judge Buchan was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.

(5)   Reputation:
Judge Buchan reported that her last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."

(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Buchan appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.

(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge Buchan appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.

(8)   Experience:
Judge Buchan was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1980.

Judge Buchan provided the following account of her legal experience since graduation from law school:

"For a brief period after my graduation from law school, I continued to clerk for the Columbia law firm of Kennedy, Price, Kostos & Coffas.

From my admission to the bar until March 1982, I worked for Timothy G. Quinn in his Columbia office and managed his Marion office. Both his Columbia office and his Marion office engaged in the general practice of law.

In March 1982, I began practicing with Edward W. Whittington, Jr. in Mullins, South Carolina, as Whittington & Buchan, Attorneys. Although my practice dealt primarily with domestic matters, we were a general practice, and I also handled real estate, commercial, civil and probate matters.

I have been a Family Court judge since May 1992."
Judge Buchan reported the frequency of her court appearances prior to her election to the Family Court bench as follows:

"(a)   Federal:   two cases;

(b)   State:     remaining cases."
Judge Buchan reported the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters prior to her election to the Family Court bench as follows:

"(a)   Civil:     14%;

(b)   Criminal:   1%;

(c)   Domestic:   85%."
Judge Buchan reported the percentage of her practice in trial court prior to her election to the Family Court bench as follows:

"(a)   Jury:     less than one-half of a percentage point;

(b)   Non-jury:   remainder."
Judge Buchan provided that she most often served as sole counsel prior to her election to the Family Court bench.

The following is Judge Buchan's account of her five most significant litigated matters:

"(a)   Prevatte v. Prevatte, 297 S.C. 345, 377 S.E.2d 114 (Ct. App. 1989). This case was handled from inception through an appellate remand and subsequent appeal. The issues included novel issues

(b)   Marion County DSS v. Rowell. I was appointed counsel in this action for termination of the parental rights of a parent with limited intelligence. It is significant to me because the parent retained her parental rights and received substantial assistance to improve her living and parental skills.

(c)   Turner v. Turner. This case was important and difficult because my client suffered from residual difficulties and disabilities from a closed-head injury. Preparation and presentation was difficult and stressful because of the importance that she receive alimony and a fair share of the assets.

(d)   Raid v. Diamond. I was appointed as the Guardian ad Litem by the judge in a neighboring county for three children who were the subject of a custody action between extended family members. The children's mother had been killed by the father, who was incarcerated.

(e)   Rabon v. Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph, et al. This action was a wrongful death action in federal court where the Plaintiff's son had died when his dirt bike hit a guy wire."

The following is Judge Buchan's account of two civil appeals she has personally handled:

"(a)   Prevatte v. Prevatte, 87-MO-08 (Ct. App. 1987);

(b)   Prevatte v. Prevatte, 297 S.C. 345, 277 S.E.2d 114 (Ct. App. 1989)."

Judge Buchan reported the following regarding prior judicial service:

"I have been a Family Court judge since May, 1992. I was first appointed and then elected later the same month. Family Courts are of limited jurisdiction as set forth by statute. Our jurisdiction is with matters of divorce, separate support and maintenance, support and property issues incidental to the marriage relationship, child custody and visitation, child support, abuse and neglect of children and vulnerable adults, juveniles, minor abortions, name changes and domestic violence."

Judge Buchan provided the following list of significant orders:

"(a)   Poston v. Poston, 331 S.C. 106, 502 S.E.2d 86 (1998);

(b)   Dixon v. Dixon, 336 S.C. 260, 519 S.E.2d 357 (Ct. App. 1999);

(c)   Holloran v. Holloran, 98-UP-533, filed November 30, 1998.   This case continues to have significance because Mr. Holloran continues to be so very unhappy with the result;

(d)   Eisenmann v. Eisenmann. This case remains one of the most significant cases I have heard because it remains the most tragic. Two professionals were involved in a contested divorce and custody action after one of them was involved in a horrible automobile accident which left that party with significant residual disabilities. The injured party's family members got involved, with the divorce and custody action resulting. Both of the parties and their children suffered immeasurably;

(e)   Jane Doe and John Doe v. SCDSS. Fictitious names are used because this is an adoption case. The child adopted first came before the Court in a removal case against the biological mother for abuse and neglect. At that time, the child had such severe physical disabilities and developmental delays that medical experts felt she would not live past her first birthday. I heard most of the DSS abuse and neglect cases and was very familiar with the child's condition. In another county, this case was set before me as an adoption. I recognized the child's name. The love and faith and goodness of the Plaintiffs had truly transformed the child and that child's prognosis. The case is significant because it is one of the few with a truly happy ending in Family Court."

Judge Buchan further provided regarding unsuccessful candidacies:
"I was unsuccessful in my bid for the Court of Appeals, Seat 3, in 1999. Although I was found qualified by the Commission, I was not nominated."

(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Buchan's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.

(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Pee Dee Citizens Advisory Committee reported: "The Honorable Mary E. Buchan is qualified for election to the position of Judge of the South Carolina Court of Appeals, Seat 6. As a result of its investigation of and previous interview with Judge Buchan, the Committee recommends this candidate without reservation."
Judge Buchan is married to Ernest McCray Graham, Jr. She has three children: David McCrary Graham (step-son), age 32; Rebecca Earl Graham (step-daughter), age 27; and Martha Alison Graham, age 15.
Judge Buchan reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   South Carolina Bar Association;

(b)   National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges;

(c)   Family Court Judges Association;

(d)   South Carolina Women Lawyers Association."
Judge Buchan provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   Marion Presbyterian Church: former deacon; presently elder and Sunday school teacher; several committees (Endowment; Worship and Music; Missions; etc.);

(b)   Friends of the Marion County Museum;

(c)   Pee Dee Academy Parent Teacher Association."

Judge Buchan further provided:

"I have both the ability and the desire to perform as an appellate judge. I have had no contact with juries since becoming a Family Court judge ten years ago, but I believe that I could bring myself up to speed on any jury issues."

The Commission was impressed with Judge Buchan's intellect and knowledge of the law. Her ten years of service as a Family Court Judge have been years of great accomplishment. Judge Buchan was found qualified for election as a Judge on the Court of Appeals.

Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Judge Cooper since his candidacy for re-election was uncontested and no complaints were received.

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Cooper meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Judge Cooper was born on November 2, 1940. He is 62 years old and a resident of Camden, South Carolina. Judge Cooper provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1967.

(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Cooper.
Judge Cooper demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges,

(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;

(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Cooper reported that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.

(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Judge Cooper to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Cooper described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"01/06/95   Limited Liability Companies;
02/11/95   The Nuts & Bolts of a Construction Project;
06/02/95   Annual Meeting: Consumer Law Section;
10/13/95   N.C./S.C. Construction Law Seminar;
02/02/96   S.C. Campaign Finance Law;
05/16/96   ADR Awakening 1996, Southeast ADR;
04/25/96   Circuit Court Civil Mediation;
01/24/97   Limited Liability Companies;
09/25/97   Premises Liability;
06/11/98   Current Developments in Real Estate;
06/11/99   Probate, Estate Planning and Trust;
06/12/99   Alternative Dispute Resolution;
1/21/2000   Criminal Law Update;
2000-2002   All JCLE Seminars."
Judge Cooper reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
"1981   'Arbitration or Litigation', Lecturer, South Carolina Bar CLE;
1993     'Alternative Dispute Resolution', Panelist;
1995     'The Nuts and Bolts of a Construction Project', Program Coordinator, South Carolina Bar, CLE;

I was a member of the American Arbitration Association National Arbitration Training Faculty. From 1996-2000, I traveled around the United States giving one (1) day seminars to new AAA arbitrators. All of these seminars qualified for a CLE credit in the States where CLE is mandatory. I was paid a per diem and expenses to conduct these seminars."
Judge Cooper reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.

(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Cooper did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Cooper did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Cooper has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Judge Cooper was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.

(5)   Reputation:
Judge Cooper reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "AV."

Judge Cooper reported that he was elected to the Kershaw County Council and served from 1990 to 2000.

(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Cooper appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge Cooper appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(8)   Experience:
Judge Cooper was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1967.
Judge Cooper reported that his legal experience since graduation from law school includes the following:
"1968-70:     Partner, West, Holland, Furman & Cooper;
1971-74:     G. Thomas Cooper, Jr., Attorney at Law;
1971-74:     Assistant Solicitor, Kershaw County;
1974-76:     Associate Probate Judge, Kershaw County;
1975-77:     Partner, West, Cooper, Bowen & Smoot;
1977-85:     Senior Partner, Cooper, Bowen, Beard & Smoot;
1985-95:     The Cooper Firm;

Judge Cooper reported that he has held judicial office as follows:

"1975-1978:     Assistant Probate Judge for Commitments, Kershaw County, appointed January 1975;
2000-Present:   Resident Judge, Fifth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3;
2002-Present:   Chief Administrative Judge for Common Pleas, Fifth Judicial Circuit;
2003:       Assigned as Chief Administrative Judge for General Sessions, Fifth Judicial Circuit."

Judge Cooper reported the citations for five of his most significant orders or opinions as follows:

"(a)   City of Newberry v. Newberry Electric Cooperative, Inc., Case No. 99-CP-36-0422, Opinion No.   3517;

(b)   Quay Drakeford v. New South, Inc., Case No. 00-CP-28-548;

(c)   Phillip H. Milner, D.O. v. S.C. State Budget and Control Board Office of Insurance Services, Employee Insurance Program, Case No. 01-CP-40-5234;

(d)   Cross Keys Against National Garbage Organization (CKANGO), Hal Stribling, Sandra S. Satterfield v. S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control, and Republic Services of Kentucky, LLC, Case No. 02-CP-40-0215;

(e)   Fred A. Cole v. Marlene J. Anderson, Case No. 02-CP-40-482."

Judge Cooper reported that "in 1984 I was a unsuccessful candidate for the South Carolina Senate; in 1992, I was an unsuccessful candidate for the South Carolina House of Representatives."

(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Cooper's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.

(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee did not submit a report on any candidate to the Commission during the screening process.
Judge Cooper is married to Hope Howell Cooper. He has three children: Sloane Cooper Ellis, age 35;   Sarah Riley Cooper, age 33;

"(a)   Kershaw County Bar Association (1967-Present) (President 1970);

(b)   South Carolina Bar Association (1976-Present) (Fee Dispute Committee, 1978-84 and Legislative Affairs Committee, 1986-90);

(c)   American Bar Association (1997-Present)."
Judge Cooper provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   Camden Country Club, President (1976-77);

(b)   Congaree Land Trust, President (2000), Associated Charities, Director (1987-Present);

(c)   Springdale Hall Club, Secretary and General Counsel (1990-2000);

(d)   Palmetto Club;

(e)   Camden Rotary Club, Paul Harris Fellow (1985-2000)."

The Commission found that Judge Cooper is qualified for continued service as a Circuit Court Judge.

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Davis meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Mr. Davis was born on June 17, 1965. He is 37 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Mr. Davis provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1991.

(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.

(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;

(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Mr. Davis testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.

(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Mr. Davis to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Davis described his continuing judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"I have attended the annual South Carolina Public Defender's Conference four out of the past five years. During calendar year 2000, I attended the Solicitor's Conference for CLE credit. I have also attended numerous military training sessions wherein I obtained CLE credit over the past five years."
Mr. Davis reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:

"I have taught business law courses at Limestone College. This was an undergraduate course in general business law principles. I taught these courses for two semesters at the aforementioned college. I currently teach Business Law and Management at Newberry College, Newberry, South Carolina."
Mr. Davis reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.

(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Mr. Davis did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Davis did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Davis has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Mr. Davis was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's

(5)   Reputation:
Mr. Davis reported the following with regard to his Martindale-Hubbell rating:

"I'm not sure [sic] what my current rating is. Although I'm [sic] fairly certain that I'm still listed."

Mr. Davis provided the following with regard to his military service:

"I served on active duty in the U.S. Army from July 13, 1983, thru July 14, 1987. I received an Honorable Discharge at the rank of Sergeant. I was called back to Operation Desert Storm and served from December 1990 thru April 1991. I was discharged honorably as a Sergeant. I am currently a reservist with the rank of Major."

(6)   Physical Health:
Mr. Davis appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(7)   Mental Stability:
Mr. Davis appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(8)   Experience:
Mr. Davis was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1991.

Mr. Davis provided the following report of his legal experience since law school:

"I worked for the Law Offices of William L. Pyatt starting in 1989. After graduating from law school, I continued to work for William L. Pyatt as an associate in his office. I worked mainly in the areas of personal injury, employment law, family law, criminal defense, and bankruptcy law. I worked in these areas from 1991 until 1996 when the firm of Pyatt & Davis, LLC was formed. I continued to work in the areas mentioned above as well as performed duties as an assistant public defender for the County of Newberry from January 1992 thru December 1999.

In December 1999, I left the Newberry Public Defender's Office to take a job with the Eighth Circuit Solicitor's Office. I entered solo practice and concentrated mainly in the areas of employment and bankruptcy law along with the prosecution of cases in Newberry County for the Eighth Circuit Solicitor's Office."

Mr. Davis also provided the following regarding his legal experience:

"I have practiced criminal law essentially the entire time that I have been engaged in the practice of law. I have had countless jury trials as a public defender and as a private criminal law practitioner. I have second chaired one death penalty case as an assistant public defender: State v. Stanley Troy Smith. Mr. Smith was charged with capital murder for the robbing and killing of his live-in girlfriend. The issue in the case was whether robbery had actually occurred. If not, then the aggravating circumstance required for capital case would have been removed. Prior to trial, co-counsel and I were able to negotiate a plea to allow our client to avoid the death penalty. Although Mr. Smith got a lengthy prison sentence, he was pleased that the death penalty was removed from the table. Further, in the case of State v. Tonya Alexander, the defendant, a twenty-three-year-old mother of two, was charged with murder for allegedly killing her husband's ex-father-in-law, with whom she was romantically involved. Mrs. Alexander was alleging battered women's syndrome as a defense. Although Mrs. Alexander never took the witness stand, I was able to put on a battered woman defense through other witnesses in an attempt to show that a woman could be battered even though she was not necessarily being battered at the time of the perpetrator's death. This, of course, was a little difficult since the facts were that the victim was shot four times point blank with a .22 caliber rifle while he was asleep. Mrs. Alexander was convicted of murder and received a thirty-year sentence.

In civil practice, I practiced mainly personal injury to include workers' compensation. Although approximately ninety percent of my automobile accident cases settled and did not require a civil trial, I feel comfortable in this area as well because I would have to prepare the case as if it were going to trial. However, I would have to brush up on the procedural aspects of civil trials. I have also handled a number of workers' compensation matters that required hearings, which necessitated the preparation of briefs prior to hearings. Finally, I have participated in employment cases that typically take a number of years to actually come to trial if not settled before hand. These cases are usually settled at the lower levels either through the employer's internal grievance process or at the administrative hearing level. I also handle routine Chapter 7 and 13 bankruptcy matters. These cases are typically straight forward and do not require much litigation.

I have handled a number of civil matters throughout the eleven plus years that I have been in practice. As a law student, I worked on the case Epps v. Clarendon County, which was an employment case that involved a number of issues including freedom of association.

"(a)   Federal:   Very infrequent as it relates to traditional civil matters. Perhaps three or four cases within the past five years. However, as regards bankruptcy matters, I appear quite frequently;

(b)   State:     Quite frequently. Eighty percent of my work involves trial work either criminal or to a lesser degree civil trial practice."
Mr. Davis reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Civil:     30%;

(b)   Criminal:   60%;

(c)   Domestic:   10%."
Mr. Davis reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Jury:     60% (mainly criminal in nature);

(b)   Non-jury:   40% (mainly civil in nature with some family court work)."
Mr. Davis provided that he most often served as sole counsel.

The following is Mr. Davis' account of his five most significant litigated matters:

"(a)   Edward Epps v. Clarendon County. This case involved a wrongful termination wherein an employee was terminated for his alleged political affiliation. This case is significant because it challenged the status quo regarding a public employee's right to affiliate with others while off duty. This case was handled by me as a

(b)   State v. Tonya Alexander. I defended this murder case which involved the use of the Battered Woman's Syndrome Defense when at the time of the killing the alleged batterer was asleep. This defense was allowed without the defendant taking the witness stand and testimony of the abuse was introduced through other witnesses. The defendant was ultimately convicted of murder, but the case made for interesting legal maneuvering.

(c)   State v. James Dycus. I defended this criminal case which involved the issue of DNA testing in a Criminal Sexual Conduct with a Minor. Dycus was charged with having intercourse with a minor after having placed an unknown substance in her drink which rendered her incapable of determining who was performing a sex act upon her. The DNA analysis, as best I can recall, determined that one out of every 9 white males with Dycus' DNA makeup could have been the perpetrator. There was no other suspect. Dycus was found not guilty.

(d)   State v. James Lee Spoon. I defended this criminal case which involved the issue of a 'show up.' The defendant was charged with Criminal Sexual Conduct in the First Degree and Burglary Second Degree. The perpetrator of this crime wore a ski mask and was not identified at the scene with the exception of voice identification. Investigators eventually called Spoon in for an interview, prior to his representation by counsel, and audio recorded the interview. Investigators subsequently brought the victim in and had her listen to the recorded voice of the defendant. She immediately identified his voice as being the person that assaulted her. During trial, I moved to suppress this tape-recording and her in court identification of Mr. Spoon. These motions were granted. Spoon was acquitted on all charges.

(e)   State v. Tony Murphy. I prosecuted this case wherein the defendant was charged with Criminal Sexual Conduct with a Minor and Lewd Act Upon a Minor. There was not DNA in this case nor was there an independent eye witness who actually saw the assault. The victim was Murphy's step-daughter. The legal issue was whether there needs to be corroborating evidence in a rape case. The answer is clearly no. Murphy was convicted of Lewd Act Upon a Minor and sentenced to fifteen years in the Department of Corrections."

Mr. Davis reported: "I have never handled a civil appeal except magistrate's court civil appeals in which case briefs were not filed."

Mr. Davis reported that he ran unsuccessfully for Circuit Court, At-Large Seat 7 in 2001.

(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Mr. Davis' temperament would be excellent.

(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee did not submit a report on any candidate to the Commission during the screening process.
Mr. Davis is married to Tracie L. Davis. He has two children: Ross Ellis Davis, age 11; and Tyler Lee Davis, age 28 months.
Mr. Davis reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   Newberry Bar Association (Current President, elected February 12, 2001);

(b)   American Bar Association;

(c)   South Carolina Bar."
Mr. Davis provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   Veterans of Foreign War Organization;

(b)   Respite House, (Non-profit Adult Day Care), Former Board Member;

(c)   Board Member, Newberry Communities in Schools (Not-for-Profit Teen After School Program)."

The Commission was favorably impressed with Mr. Davis' legal experience and found him qualified for service as a Circuit Court Judge.

Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Judge Dennis since his candidacy for re-election was uncontested and no complaints were received.

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Dennis meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.

(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Dennis.
Judge Dennis demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Dennis reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Dennis reported he has not:

(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;

(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Dennis reported that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.

(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Judge Dennis to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Dennis described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a)   While a practicing attorney, I attended courses involving trial advocacy, both civil and criminal courts. I also attended courses dealing with topics in employment law. Also, I have attended seminars dealing with issues in the Family Courts. With the exception of 1990, I have averaged approximately 19 hours per year continuing education in the period courses;

(b)   Since becoming a member of the judiciary, I have participated in numerous seminars during the years, earning a minimum of 15 hours per year;

(c)   Also, I attended the General Jurisdictional Program at the National Judicial College in Reno, Nevada for three weeks in July 1994."
Judge Dennis reported that he has taught a law class for The Citadel for three separate semesters.
Judge Dennis reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.

(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Dennis did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Dennis did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Dennis has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Judge Dennis was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.

(5)   Reputation:
Judge Dennis reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."

(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Dennis appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge Dennis appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(8)   Experience:
Judge Dennis was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1973.

Judge Dennis characterized his work history since law school as follows:

"Upon graduation from law school in 1973 and admission to the Bar in November 1973, I practiced law in Moncks Corner, South Carolina. My practice was of a general nature dealing primarily in litigation in family court, civil court, criminal court, probate court, and some administrative agencies, primarily Workers' Compensation. I represented the Berkeley County School District and for seven years was retained counsel for it. My representation resulted in my having to handle various legal matters including issues involving school law and employment law. I handled several matters in the Court of Appeals in this State and was associate counsel in a matter heard by the S.C. Supreme Court. During my practice in Moncks Corner, I also had

Judge Dennis represented his prior service in judicial office as follows:

"I was elected Circuit Court Judge, At-Large Seat No. 2 in February 1994 to fill the unexpired term of the Honorable William T. Howell and have been serving continuously since that date."

Judge Dennis listed the following as significant orders he had issued:

"(a)   Fleming v. Rose, 2002 WL 1592466, S.C. 2002;

(b)   Doe v. Berkeley Publishing, 471 S.E.2d 731, S.C. App. 1996; 496 S.E.2d 636, S.C. 1998;

(c)   Garvin v. Bi-Lo, 541 S.E.2d 831, S.C. 2001;

(d)   South Carolina Life and Accident and Heath Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Liberty Life Ins. Co., 545 S.E.2d 270, S.C. 2001;

(e)   I'On, L.L.C. v. Town of Mt. Pleasant, 526 S.E.2d 716, S.C. 2000."

Judge Dennis reported that he had engaged in no other employment while he was serving as a judge.

Judge Dennis reported that he had never been an unsuccessful candidate for elective, judicial or other public office.

(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Dennis' temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.

(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Lowcountry Citizens Advisory Committee reported: "Judge Dennis is highly recommended for re-election to Circuit Court, At-Large Seat 2."
Judge Dennis is married to Janis Sherell Galbreaith. He has three children: R. Markley Dennis, III, age 29; Molly Allexum Dennis Hamilton, age 27; and Andrew Paul Dennis, age 21.
Judge Dennis reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   South Carolina Bar Association;

(b)   South Carolina Circuit Judges Association;

(c)   Circuit Judges Advisory Committee;

(d)   Administrative Law Judge's Committee."

"(a)   Lions Club;

(b)   Berkeley High School Mock Trial Team;

(c)   USC Gamecock Club;

(d)   The Hibernian Society."

The Commission found Judge Dennis to be qualified for continued service as a Circuit Court Judge.

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED, BUT NOT NOMINATED

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Dennis meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Judge Dennis was born on November 11, 1948. He is 54 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Judge Dennis provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1975.

(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Dennis.
Judge Dennis demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Dennis reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures other than those for travel and room and board.
Judge Dennis testified he has not:

(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;

(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Dennis testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.

(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Judge Dennis to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Dennis described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a)   2002   A Judge's Philosophy of the Law, Harvard University, 28 hrs;

(b)   2001   Criminal Trial Skills, American Academy of Judicial Education, 28 hrs;

For the preceding ten years, I have averaged at least 25 hours of continuing legal and/or judicial education."
Judge Dennis reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:

"(a)   Panel member for 'Ethics for Arbitrators and Mediators' sponsored by the South Carolina Bar;

(b)   Taught the Prosecution Clinic at USC School of Law for several semesters;

(c)   Taught Criminal Procedure at the USC College of Criminal Justice;

(d)   Taught Business Law at Columbia Junior College."
Judge Dennis reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.

(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Dennis did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Dennis did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Dennis has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Judge Dennis was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.

(5)   Reputation:
Judge Dennis reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating is "BV."

Judge Dennis reported his military service as follows:
"I served as a Cadet at the United States Coast Guard Academy from June 1967 through October 1967 and was honorably discharged."

(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Dennis appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge Dennis appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Judge Dennis was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1975.

Judge Dennis provided the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:
"1975-1978:   Assistant Solicitor Fifth Judicial Circuit.
Prosecuted and prepared criminal cases;
1979-1980:   Associate with Holler, Gregory and McKellar.
General practice of law including trials in all courts;
1990-Present:   Part-time Municipal Judge for the City of Columbia.
1981-1990:   Partner in Holler, Dennis and Olive.
General Practice of Law;
1990-1995:   Sole Practitioner, Law Offices of Steven D. Dennis;
General Practice of Law;
1996-Present:   Holler, Dennis, Corbett, Ormond, Plante & Garner.
Partner, General Practice of Law."

Judge Dennis further provided regarding his experience in civil and criminal matters:

"I have presided over thousands of misdemeanor cases as a municipal judge. I have set thousands of bonds on both felonies in General Sessions cases and misdemeanor cases. I have tried hundreds of criminal cases in my legal career including defending cases for murder, armed robbery, burglary, drug distribution, criminal sexual conduct, and more crimes. I prosecuted almost every type of criminal case in existence, but never a murder case.

I have tried relatively fewer civil cases, but still over a hundred, most of which were personal injury or business related cases. I have represented civil defendants, and I currently have a few such cases, but the great majority of my civil work has been from the plaintiff's side."
Judge Dennis reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Federal:   20;

(b)   State:     250."

"(a)   Civil:     50%;

(b)   Criminal:   30%;

(c)   Domestic:   20%."
Judge Dennis reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Jury:     80%;

(b)   Non-jury:   20%."
Judge Dennis provided that he most often served as sole counsel.

The following is Judge Dennis' account of his five most significant litigated matters:

"(a)   United States v. Egbert Richardson, 939 F.2d 135 (4th Cir. 1991). This appeal limits the government's ability to include relevant conduct of subsequent acts to the weight of drugs to be included at sentencing;

(b)   State v. Ballard. Criminal sexual conduct trial in December 2001 in Richland County General Sessions Court;

(c)   United States v. Gladys Vasquez Alvarez. Drug conspiracy and money laundering trial in U.S. District Court. A very complex, lengthy trial;

(d)   State v. Danny Lail. Defended multiple murderer and through legal research convinced the state that the death penalty could not legally be applied;

(e)   State v. Michael Robinson. By use of eye witness identification experts saved Mr. Robinson from a conviction on a charge of armed robbery."

The following is Judge Dennis' account of civil appeals he has personally handled:

"(a)   Davie v. Atkinson, 313 S.E.2d 648 (1984);

(b)   Davie v. Atkinson, 352 S.E.2d 517 (1987). This case went up on appeal twice in a dispute over hundreds of acres of land that had been taken by fraud in 1921; obviously, issues such as the statute of limitations and the 'dead man' statute were significant to this case."

Regarding judicial positions held, Judge Dennis reported:

"Municipal Judge for the City of Columbia 1990-Present: appointed by Columbia City Council. Misdemeanor criminal jurisdiction up to $500.00 and/or 30 days (with minor exception)."

Judge Dennis reported that he was an unsuccessful "candidate for Family Court Judge about 1994."

(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Dennis' temperament would be excellent.

(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee did not submit a report on any candidate to the Commission during the screening process.
Judge Dennis is not married. He has two children: Patrick Graham Dennis, age 26; and Matthew Conner Dennis, age 23.
Judge Dennis reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   South Carolina Bar, 1975;

(b)   South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association;

(c)   National Judges Association."

The Commission believes Judge Dennis is qualified to serve as a Circuit Court Judge because of his substantial criminal practice and his municipal judicial experience.

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED, BUT NOT NOMINATED

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Mrs. Downey meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Mrs. Downey was born on June 7, 1965. She is 37 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Mrs. Downey provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1990.

(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mrs. Downey.

Mrs. Downey demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.

Mrs. Downey reported that she has not made any campaign expenditures beyond the use of her firm's copier, paper, and postage.

Mrs. Downey testified she has not:

(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;

(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Mrs. Downey testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.

(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Mrs. Downey to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

Mrs. Downey described her continuing legal education during the past five years as follows:

"(a)   Frequent speaker on the subject of the interaction of bankruptcy and family law issues;

(b)   Seminars relative to my specialization certification in bankruptcy and debtor-creditor law;

(c)   Co-authored and edited legal publications."

Mrs. Downey reported that she has taught the following law-related courses:

"(a)   Paralegal course on bankruptcy at Columbia Junior College;

(b)   Collection of Accounts Receivable in South Carolina, May 2002, discussed planning, collection and bankruptcy issues on a procedural and substantive level;

(c)   Cool Tips From the Hottest Domestic Law Practitioners, Apr. 2002, spoke on recent bankruptcy cases impacting domestic law;

(d)   Creditors Rights and Protection of Security Interests in Bankruptcy, Feb. 2002, instructed attorneys and bank officers on revisions to Uniform Commercial Code;

(e)   Bankruptcy and Probate Law, Jan. 2002, spoke to bankruptcy attorneys on effect of probate proceedings upon existing and future bankruptcy cases;

(f)   Basic Bankruptcy: Law and Practice in South Carolina, Oct. 2001, taught general practitioner attorneys and bankruptcy managers the basics of bankruptcy;

(g)   The Ninth Annual Probate Bench/Bar, Sep. 2001, led judges and attorneys on how bankruptcy proceedings may affect probate proceedings;

(h)   Cool Tips From the Hottest Lawyers, Apr. 2001, instructed attorneys about continuing contempt actions in Family Court upon a bankruptcy filing;

(i)     Cool Tips From the Hottest Lawyers, May 2000, informed attorneys about the provisions of the bankruptcy code on dischargeability of property settlement obligations;

(j)     Paralegal Practice in South Carolina, Aug. 1999, discussed with paralegals the bankruptcy practice in South Carolina;

(k)   Cool Tips From the Hottest Lawyers, May 1999, offered attorneys tips on the application of the automatic stay in family law cases;

(l)     South Carolina Collection Law For Attorneys, Jan. 1999, presented in depth analysis of collection law in South Carolina;

(m)   Residential and Commercial Evictions in South Carolina, Oct. 1998, spoke to attorneys and managers about eviction law in South Carolina;

(n)   South Carolina Collection Law, Sep. 1998, outlined collection law in South Carolina;

(o)   'Til Death Do You Part...or Bankruptcy, Whichever Shall First Occur', Aug. 1998, spoke at South Carolina Bankruptcy Law Association Annual Meeting on bankruptcy and domestic law issues;

(p)   Bankruptcy Law Update, Oct. 1997, asked by the South Carolina Bar to develop program and to moderate presentation, which was tailored for bankruptcy specialists;

(q)   Marketing for the Young Lawyer, Oct. 1997, described my own transition into solo practice and provided marketing tips;

(r)   Rules Pertaining to Obtaining Relief from Stay to Pursue Child and Spousal Support;

(s)   May 1996, instructed domestic lawyers on bankruptcy rules to obtain relief from the automatic stay to pursue support;

(t)     A Primer on Handling Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Cases-For Lawyers Representing Legal Services and Pro Bono Clients, Sep. 1996, instructed attorneys interested in handling pro bono bankruptcy cases of the favorable federal and state consumer laws;

(u)   Bankruptcy and Domestic Law Under the Bankruptcy Reform Act, 1995 5th Annual Bankruptcy Convention and Seminar,

(v)   Domestic Practice: The Continuing Saga of 'Hot Tips From the Experts,' Jul. 1995, presented via closed-circuit television to 13 statewide satellite locations in S.C.; lectured on the impact of the Bankruptcy Reform Act upon domestic law;

(w)   1994 This Was the Year That Was 1994: Bankruptcy Law Update, Dec. 1994, presented via closed-circuit television to 13 statewide satellite sites; described state and federal bankruptcy changes occurring during the year 1994;

(x)   Family Law Update: Divorce, Custody, Support, Equitable Division & More, Sep. 1994, presented to South Carolina Bar; outlined important bankruptcy considerations for domestic practitioners;

(y)   A New Weapon Against Deadbeat Parents, Aug. 1994, presented to the South Carolina Bar. As speaker, moderator and organizer of the seminar and as a drafter of the local rule, responsibilities included editing versions of the rule, developing the agenda, coordinating speakers, and scheduling the seminar;

(z)   Domestic Practice: Hot Tips From the Experts, May 1994, presented to South Carolina Bar; topic was entitled 'New Bankruptcy Court Rules Regarding Child Support Obligations';

(aa)   How to Handle a Chapter 7 Pro Bono Case, Oct. 1993, presented to South Carolina Bar by the South Carolina Bankruptcy Law Association Pro Bono Committee. Developed topic, and coordinated speakers, video, software package, written materials, publicity, registration and presentation of seminar."

Mrs. Downey reported that she has published the following:

"(a)   Editorial Board for Marital Litigation in South Carolina, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Editions;

(b)   Co-author of the Paralegal Survivor Guide, 1999;

(c)   'Untying the Knot: Practicing Domestic Law Under the New Bankruptcy Reform Act,' American Bankruptcy Institute Journal, Vol. XV, No. 1, February 1996;

(d)   'Practicing Domestic Law Under the Bankruptcy Reform Act,' South Carolina Lawyer, Vol. 7, No. 4, January/February 1996;

(e)   'The Power of Persuasion: Convincing Nonconsumer Lawyers to Accept Pro Bono Bankruptcy Cases,' Bankruptcy Litigation Newsletter, Vol. 3, No. 2, Spring 1995;

(f)   'Practicing Domestic Law Under the Bankruptcy Reform Act,' Bankruptcy Litigation Newsletter, Vol. III, No. 4, Fall 1995;

(g)   'Convincing Nonconsumer Lawyers to Accept Pro Bono Bankruptcy Cases,' American Bankruptcy Institute Journal, Vol. XIII, No. 10, December/January 1995;

(h)   'Bankruptcy Laws Recognize Special Needs of Children,' Consumer Law Letter, Vol. X, No. 1, July 1994;

(i)     Co-author, Local Rule 4001.2, United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of South Carolina, which eases the collection of child support;

(j)     Co-author, 'Bankruptcy After Divorce: I thought we had an agreement,' South Carolina Lawyer, May/June 1992.

(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Mrs. Downey did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Mrs. Downey did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mrs. Downey has handled her financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Mrs. Downey was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.

(5)   Reputation:

Mrs. Downey reported that her Martindale-Hubbell rating is "BV."

(6)   Physical Health:

Mrs. Downey appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.

(7)   Mental Stability:

Mrs. Downey appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.

(8)   Experience:

Mrs. Downey was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1990.

Mrs. Downey describes her legal experience since graduation from law school as follows:

"Jane H. Downey, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina. 1997-present:

Practice concentrates in areas of alternative dispute resolution and of bankruptcy and collection law, representing creditors and debtors with an emphasis on adversary proceedings and litigation.

Nelson, Mullins, Riley and Scarborough, L.L.P., Columbia and Greenville, South Carolina. 1990-1997:

Practice focused on bankruptcy law and in particular, domestic law and bankruptcy. Responsibilities included taking the lead or secondary role representing the interests of creditors, unsecured creditors' committees and debtors in medium to large cases."

Mrs. Downey also reported:

"My experience in bankruptcy court litigation is vast. I have trial experience, motions experience and settle most of my cases. A detailed listing of my cases would be voluminous. I usually appear in bankruptcy court more than once a week, and my caseload is ever changing. I encourage you to speak with my colleagues, the two judges, the Office of the United States Trustee or the Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 Trustees about my ability and my experience. My experience in bankruptcy court encompasses application of state law, as bankruptcy law often applies applicable state law. My experience in state court over the last five years has involved scattered lawsuits and motions, mostly in the area of collections matters, installment sales contracts and foreclosure. I have some experience with personal injury cases, judicial dissolution of a business, and also lemon law cases, which incorporate tangential issues, such as fraud, conversion and the UTPA. I have represented plaintiffs and defendants. I have been appointed and selected as a mediator or arbitrator in various state court cases. I do not have criminal experience, so I would need to review criminal law, ask for assistance from other judges and would prefer to have a law clerk with criminal experience."

Mrs. Downey reported the frequency of her court appearances during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Federal:   Approximately 3 times a week;

(b)   State:     Probably once a quarter."

Mrs. Downey reported the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Civil:     95%;

(b)   Criminal:   0%;

(c)   Domestic:   5%."

Mrs. Downey reported the percentage of her practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Jury:     0%;

(b)   Non-jury:   100%."

Mrs. Downey provided that she most often served as sole counsel.

The following is Mrs. Downey's account of her five most significant litigated matters:

"(a)   Hovis v. Summit Security Services, Inc. (In re Air South Airlines), 99-80297W. The case involved discovery, contested motions and went to trial with testimony of witnesses from out of state and resulted in an order favorable to my client;

(b)   Steele v. Assey (In re Steele), 00-80251W. Case involved very technical interpretation of a specific code section and the judge ruled in my client's favor;

(c)   In re Willis, 00-11170B. Contested litigation involving even testimony of my client's domestic attorney and the order in my client's favor will impact Chapter 13 cases filed solely for domestic reasons;

(d)   In re RDM Group, LLC, 01-13158W and 01-02443W. Case involved closing down a music nightclub in Columbia, which was highly publicized by the media;

(e)   Campbell v. Electric City Printing Co. (In re Chenoweth), 97-80048W. This was the first complicated case I handled in sole practice and discovery even took me to Washington, DC. I was responsible for eventually settling the case a year after it was filed."

The following is Mrs. Downey's account of civil appeals she has personally handled:

"(a)   Anderson v. Walker, United States District Court for the District of S.C., entered May 7, 2002; 4:01cv813-25;

(b)   Anderson v. Glidden, United States District Court for the District of S.C., entered October 14, 1999; 4:99-1337-22."

Mrs. Downey reported that she has never held judicial office and has never been an unsuccessful candidate for elective, judicial, or public office.

(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Mrs. Downey's temperament would be excellent.

(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee did not submit a report on any candidate to the Commission during the screening process.

Mrs. Downey is married to Todd Mainsel Downey. She has three children: Nicholas Bates Downey, age 7; Julian Thompson Downey, age 2; and Todd Mainsel Downey, Jr., age 1.

Mrs. Downey reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   Certified specialist by the South Carolina Supreme Court in bankruptcy and debtor/creditor law;

(b)   Certified by American Bankruptcy Board of Certification in business bankruptcy (certification not recognized by South Carolina Supreme Court);

(c)   Admitted to South Carolina Bar, United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, United States District Court for the District of South Carolina;

(d)   Richland County Bar Association;

(e)   South Carolina Bar Association;

(f)   South Carolina Bankruptcy Law Association: Past Member of Board of Directors (1993-2000), Past President (1998-1999), Past Vice-President (1997-1998), Past Secretary (1996-1997), Past Treasurer (1995-1996), Past Chair and Member of Convention and Seminar Planning Committee, Incorporating Attorney, and Past Chair of Public Service Committee (1993-1995);

(g)   American Bankruptcy Institute;

(h)   Previously a Foreclosure Commissioner for U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development;

(i)     Federal Bar Association;

(j)     South Carolina Women's Lawyers Association;

(k)   Certified Mediator by the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina;

(l)     Certified Mediator by South Carolina Supreme Court;

(m)   Certified Arbitrator by South Carolina Supreme Court."

Mrs. Downey provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   Received Certificate of Appreciation on September 4, 2002 at the City Council Meeting from the Mayor and from City Council for the City of Columbia for work performed while on the Citizens Advisory Committee for Community Development;

(b)   Citizens Advisory Committee for Community Development, At-Large Appointee, City of Columbia, past member;

(c)   Volvo Tennis League (off and on since 1990);

(d)   Board of Directors Incarnation Lutheran Child Development Center, past member;

(e)   Accept Pro Bono referrals from the South Carolina Bar Association;

(f)   Volunteer at First Presbyterian Church, Columbia South Carolina nursery;

(g)   1996 recipient of the Claude M. Scarborough, Jr. Pro Bono Award for Outstanding Legal Assistance to the Poor;

(h)   1994 Recipient of the William E.S. Robinson Public Service Award, presented by the South Carolina Bankruptcy Law Association."

The Commission noted Mrs. Downey is a very competent attorney and that she presented herself well to the Commission. The Commission believes that Mrs. Downey is qualified for election to the Circuit Court.

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Freeman meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Mr. Freeman was born on July 25, 1944. He is 58 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Mr. Freeman provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1971.

(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Freeman.
Mr. Freeman demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Mr. Freeman reported that he has made approximately $60 in campaign expenditures for a letter of intent requesting the judicial application and a letter to members of General Assembly notifying them of his interest in this judgeship.
Mr. Freeman testified he has not:

(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;

(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Mr. Freeman to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Freeman described his continuing legal education during the past five years as follows:

"I have maintained the required twelve hours of continuing legal education and two hours of ethics education for the past five years. My areas of emphasis for CLE have been procurement, ethics and personal injury."
Mr. Freeman reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:

"I have lectured on S.C. Tort Claims Act, the S.C. Ethics in Government Act, and several aspects of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. I coordinated a Suggs & Kelly seminar, How to Try a Civil Case, also."
Mr. Freeman reported that he has not published any books and/or articles but he did provide written material for the seminars mentioned in the previous question.

(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Mr. Freeman did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Freeman did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Freeman has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Mr. Freeman was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.

(5)   Reputation:
Mr. Freeman reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating is "AV."

Mr. Freeman provided the following account of his service in the military:
"Active duty: September 1966 to September 1968. U.S. Army Infantry, Rank Obtained: 2d Lt., Platoon Leader, 2d Platoon, C Company, 1st Battalion 8th Infantry, 4th Infantry Division, Viet Nam 1st Lt., Company Executive Officer, C Company, 1st Btn., 8th Inf., 4th

Instructor; Army Serial No. 05333003

Honorable Discharge, currently no military obligation."

Mr. Freeman reported that he has held the following public offices:

"(a)   Member of South Carolina House of Representatives, House District 48; elected to serve five terms beginning 1976 ending 1986;

(b)   Chairman, Election Laws subcommittee, House Judiciary Committee 1980-1986; Appointed to serve by Chairman of House Judiciary Committee;

(c)   Member, House Rules Committee, appointed by Speaker;

(d)   Member, House Operations and Management Committee; Elected by membership;

(e)   Member, South Carolina Coastal Council, 1981-1986; Appointed by Speaker;

(f)   Member, Winthrop University Board of Trustees, 1986-1992; Elected by Joint Assembly of House and Senate;

(g)   Member, Blue Ribbon Panel to Draft Coastal Zone Management Act; Appointed by Chairman of South Carolina Coastal Council."

(6)   Physical Health:
Mr. Freeman appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(7)   Mental Stability:
Mr. Freeman appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(8)   Experience:
Mr. Freeman was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1971.

Mr. Freeman provided the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:
"Mack, Mack & Freeman, Fort Mill, South Carolina, 1971-1981:

General practice of administrative, domestic relations, general civil and criminal law, magistrate's court;
Spencer & Spencer, Rock Hill, South Carolina, 1981-1986:

Practice criminal, domestic relations, administrative law and civil law; also counsel for several local government subdivisions. After

Government relations, administrative law, civil litigation, some criminal practice;
Suggs & Kelly, Columbia, 1995-2001:

Civil litigation, administrative law, government relations.
Law Firm of Palmer Freeman, 2001 to present:

Civil litigation, administrative law, government relations."
Mr. Freeman reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Federal:   Eight to ten trials in five years. Numerous motion and other appearances during the same period;

(b)   State:       Eight to ten trials in five years. Numerous motion and other appearances during the same period."
Mr. Freeman reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Civil:     90%;

(b)   Criminal:   5%;

(c)   Domestic:   5%."
Mr. Freeman reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Jury:     90%   of these, 90% of the cases I handled were   settled or disposed of before they went to trial;

(b)   Non-jury:   10%."
Mr. Freeman provided the following:

"Two-thirds of my cases involve co-counsel who participate in varying degrees in preparing the case for trial. Usually I am contacted to assist other attorneys in the trial of a case. I was chief counsel on all of these cases except three. As to those three cases, I served a co-counsel because of the associated attorney's expertise in some area of the law.

The other one-third of my cases involve me as sole counsel."

The following is Mr. Freeman's account of his most significant litigated matters:

"(a)   State v. Wayne Henderson. York County death penalty trial. Was one of the first death penalty trials after the statute was changed to re-allow the death penalty. Defendant was convicted of murder but was not given the death penalty;

(b)   Babcock v. Bell South Advertising and Publishing, U.S. District Court for S.C., Case #3:00-3802-10. Case involved interpretation of Family Medical Leave Act. Trial in July 2002;

(c)   Knowles v. Department of Corrections, Richland County Court of Common Pleas, Case #97-CP-40-2383. Case involved one of the first charges of sexual misconduct against Department of Corrections officer. Settled at trial;

(d)   DHEC, et al. v. Reliance Insurance Company. Richland County. Involved claim against commercial general liability insurance company for clean up of a superfund site. Settled prior to trial;

(e)   Rocheville v. Moore. Spartanburg County. PCR application to overturn death penalty conviction. Trial, conviction affirmed (Appeal listed below);

(f)   AT&T right of way cases. I represented AT&T in many condemnation suits when it was installing a fiber optic cable underground across South Carolina. The cases were significant because they were some of the first cases brought under the South Carolina Condemnation Act after it was amended."

The following is Mr. Freeman's account of civil appeals he has personally handled:

"(a)   Williams v. Sandman, 187 F.3d 379 (4th Cir. 1999);

(b)   McNair v. Rainsford, 499 S.E.2d 488 (S.C. Ct App. 1998);

(c)   Connor v. Secretary, Case #9:00-3625-24RB, unpublished Federal District Court Opinion 2002. Appeal from ALJ to Magistrate and appeal from Magistrate to District Judge Seymour."

Mr. Freeman further provided the following criminal appeal he has personally handled:

"(a)   Rocheville v. South Carolina, 175 F.3d 1015 (4th Cir. 1998 unpublished opinion)."

Mr. Freeman reported that he has never held judicial office.

Mr. Freeman further provided:

"In 1974, I filed to run for county council of York County. The proposed form of government was never approved and so the election was never held."

(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Mr. Freeman's temperament would be excellent.

(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee did not submit a report on any candidate to the Commission during the screening process.

"(a)   South Carolina Bar Association, former member House of Delegates;

(b)   American Bar Association;

(c)   South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association;

(d)   Richland County Bar, former committee chair."
Mr. Freeman provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   The South Carolina Nature Conservancy, Committee Chair;

(b)   The Richland County Public Defender, Corporation   Chair;

(c)   The Palmetto Trail Board of Directors, former Chair;

(d)   Forest Lake Elementary School Foundation;

(e)   South Carolina Heart Association, fundraiser;

(f)   South Carolina Law School Association, fundraiser."

Mr. Freeman additionally provided "I am in good health, but my wife has been battling cancer for six years."

The Commission was favorably impressed with Mr. Freeman's experience in his thirty years of practicing law. Mr. Freeman was also viewed as being of solid judicial temperament. He was found to be qualified and was nominated for election to the Circuit Court bench.

Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Judge Goode since his candidacy for re-election was uncontested and no complaints were received.

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Goode meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Judge Goode was born on August 7, 1950. He is 52 years old and a resident of Winnsboro, South Carolina. Judge Goode provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least

(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Goode.
Judge Goode demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Goode reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Goode reported he has not:

(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;

(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Goode reported that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.

(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Judge Goode to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Goode described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a)   I attended the National Judicial College in Reno, Nevada;

(b)   Judicial Conferences in 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002;

(c)   Criminal Law Updates, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002."
Judge Goode reported that he has taught the following law-related course:
"Judicial Ethics Seminar, November 30, 2001."
Judge Goode reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.

(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Goode did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Goode did not

The Commission also noted that Judge Goode was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.

(5)   Reputation:
Judge Goode reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."

Judge Goode reported he served in the S.C. Army National Guard and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserves where he finished his service. He attained the rank of Specialist 5th Class and served from April 1970 through April 1976. He was honorably discharged.

Judge Goode reported he served continuously from July 23, 1980 to June 28, 1999, as Fairfield County Attorney.

(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Goode appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge Goode appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(8)   Experience:
Judge Goode was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1976.

Judge Goode provided the following regarding his legal experience since graduation from law school:
"1976-December 31, 1977:

Associate with Columbia law firm of Hyatt & Elliott.
January 1, 1978-June 28, 1999:

General trial practice in Winnsboro, S.C.
July 23, 1980-June 28, 1999:

Fairfield County Attorney.

I was elected to the Circuit Court bench June 2, 1999, and was sworn in on June 28, 1999."

Judge Goode provided the following list of five of his most significant orders:

"(a)   99-CP-25-214, Alfred Middleton, et al. v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Company and Audon Ontiveros;

(b)   00-CP-43-250, Joe Edward Moore, Jr. v. City of Sumter;

(c)   98-CP-10-4430, The Estate of Randall E. Donaldson, Sr., by and through his Personal Representative, Dianne J. Donaldson v. Mobel Insurance Company, et al.;

(d)   99-CP-40-4530, Rick's Amusements, et al. v. State of South Carolina;

(e)   01-CP-12-189, Chester County Council, et al. v. Dan Peach, et al."

(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Goode's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.

(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Piedmont Citizens Advisory Committee reported that Judge Goode "impressed the committee by his hard work and endeavors to be a good judge. The committee finds the Honorable Kenneth G. Goode to be qualified to be re-elected to At-Large Seat #8."
Judge Goode is married to Betty Gail Massey Goode. He has three children: Marshall Smith Goode, II, age 22; Taylor Suzannah Goode, age 20; and Kenneth George Goode, Jr., age 19.
Judge Goode reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   S.C. Bar Association, November 1976-present; House of Delegates, 1994;

(b)   S.C. Trial Lawyers Association, 1976-present;

(c)   American Trial Lawyers Association, 1980-present;

(d)   S.C. Association of County Attorneys, 1980-1999; Vice President approximately 1992;

(e)   S.C. Criminal Defense Attorneys Association, 1997-present."
Judge Goode provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   Elected to House of Delegates of S.C. Bar Association;

(b)   Elected Vice-President of S.C. Association of County Attorneys;

(c)   Named to Who's Who in America;

(d)   Named to Who's Who in American Law with biographical profile;

(e)   Names to Who's Who in South and Southwest;

(f)   Names to Who's Who in Executives and Professionals;

(g)   Chairman of the site location sub-committee for Fairfield Intermediate School;

(h)   Recipient of Fairfield's Finest Award, 1992, presented by Fairfield County School Board;

(i)     Recipient of Certificate of Appreciation for the Cooperative Vocational Education Program, 1990, Fairfield County Vocational Center;

(j)     Recipient of Bob Hayes Memorial Sportsman of the Year Award, 1994-1995, awarded by Southeastern Enduro and Trail Riders Association, a group of approximately 1500 members in the Southeastern United States;

(k)   Recipient of the first Friend of the Arts Award, 1994, Fairfield County Arts Council;

(l)     Recipient of the William Banks Patrick Historic Preservation Award, 1986;

(m)   Recipient of Certificate of Appreciation, 1993, The American Education Committee, Fairfield Intermediate School;

(n)   Recipient of Principal's Award for Outstanding Contribution, 1993, Fairfield Intermediate School;

(o)   Recipient of Certificate of Appreciation for being a friend to education, 1991, Fairfield Middle School;

(p)   Selected Best Attorney in Fairfield County in the 1998 Best of the Best Competition chosen by the readers of the Herald Independent Newspaper;

(q)   Recipient of Good Samaritan Award, 1996, The Good Samaritan House, a Fairfield County homeless shelter."

The Commission found Judge Goode to be qualified for continued service as a Circuit Court Judge.

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Judge Gregory since his candidacy for re-election was uncontested and no complaints were received.

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Gregory meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Judge Gregory was born on March 15, 1941. He is 61 years old and a resident of Beaufort, South Carolina. Judge Gregory provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1967.

(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Gregory.
Judge Gregory demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Gregory reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Gregory testified he has not:

(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;

(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Gregory testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.

(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Judge Gregory to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Gregory described his continuing judicial education during the past five years as follows:

"(a)   I have attended most, if not all, of the seminars for Circuit Court Judges;

(b)   I have also attended some on a voluntary basis at S.C. Trial Lawyers;

(c)   S.C. Defense Lawyers annual meetings."
Judge Gregory reported that he has not taught or lectured at any bar association conferences, educational institutions, or continuing legal or judicial education programs.
Judge Gregory reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.

(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Gregory did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Gregory did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Gregory has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Judge Gregory was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.

(5)   Reputation:
Judge Gregory reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."

Judge Gregory reported that he has held the following public office:
"S.C. House of Representatives, District 121, 1980-1991."

(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Gregory appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge Gregory appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(8)   Experience:
Judge Gregory was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1967.

Judge Gregory provided the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:
"1967-1968:

Law Clerk to the Honorable Bruce Littlejohn, Associate Justice, S.C. Supreme Court;
July 1968-March 31, 1969:

Associate in Law Office of Roy McBee Smith, Spartanburg, S.C. General Practice of Law;
April 1, 1969-1981:

Associate of James P. Harrelson, Esquire, Walterboro, S.C. and partner in law firm of Harrelson & Gregory. General Practice of Law;
1981-June 30, 1991:

Sole practitioner in Walterboro. General   Practice of Law;
July 1, 1991 to present: Circuit Judge."

Judge Gregory reported the following relative to prior judicial positions:
"Resident Circuit Judge, 14th Judicial Circuit, Seat #2, July 1, 1991 to present."

Judge Gregory provided the following list of significant orders:

"(a)   529 S.E.2d 758, Becker v. Wal-Mart Stores;

(b)   344 S.C. 315, 543 S.E.2d 278, Roof v. Swanson, et al.;

(c)   517 S.E.2d 449, Duncan v. Hampton County School District #2;

(d)   544 S.E.2d 634, Toomer, et al. v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., et al.;

(e)   Unpublished Opinion No. 2002-UP-022, The State v. Phinizy Heyward."

(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Judge Gregory's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.

(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Lowcountry Citizens Advisory Committee reported: "Judge Jackson V. Gregory is highly recommended for re-election to the Circuit Court for the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2."
Judge Gregory is married to Marjorie J. Gregory. He has three children: Frances E. Gregory, age 30; Hallie L. Gregory, age 28; and Anna J. Gregory, age 22.
Judge Gregory reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   S.C. Bar Association;

(b)   Beaufort County Bar Association."

The Commission found Judge Gregory to be qualified for continued service as a Circuit Court Judge.

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Harris meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Mr. Harris was born on April 10, 1959. He is 43 years old and a resident of Cheraw, South Carolina. Mr. Harris provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1984.

(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Harris.
Mr. Harris demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges,

(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;

(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior   to screening.
Mr. Harris testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.

(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Mr. Harris to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Harris described his continuing legal education during the past five years as follows:

"My continuing legal education is current, and I have attended CLE's during the past five years covering topics from advocacy, local government, evidence and ethics."
Mr. Harris reported that he has routinely appeared during the past several years at Chesterfield Marlboro Technical College as a guest speaker in the business law class.
Mr. Harris reported that he published the following:

"I wrote a short article for the Young Lawyers Division of the South Carolina Bar, and I believe this article would have been written about 1988."

(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Mr. Harris did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Harris did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Harris has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Mr. Harris was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.

(5)   Reputation:
Mr. Harris reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."

Mr. Harris reported that he was elected to the South Carolina House of Representatives and served from 1997 to 2000.

(6)   Physical Health:
Mr. Harris appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(7)   Mental Stability:
Mr. Harris appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(8)   Experience:
Mr. Harris was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1984.

He reported his work history since graduation from law school as follows:

"After graduating from law school in 1984, I served as law clerk to the Honorable Larry Richter, a Circuit Court Judge in Charleston. I clerked for one year, then returned to my home town of Cheraw to enter private practice in 1985, and I have been in private practice ever since. I have been with the same firm continuously. The present name of our firm is Harris, McLeod & Ruffner, although the name has changed some over the years as partners have retired or left for other endeavors.

I have been engaged in the general practice of law for the past 171/2 years. My practice includes civil work (representing both plaintiffs and defendants), real estate and foreclosure, domestic work, workers' compensation, work for local governments, general business work and criminal practice. I practice actively in Magistrate's Court, Family Court and Circuit Court, and I have occasionally been involved with appellate work. The character of my practice has not changed much, although I have done less criminal work in the past five or six years and more civil litigation."

Mr. Harris further reported regarding his experience in civil and criminal matters:

"In the early stages of my practice, I represented defendants in criminal cases involving criminal sexual conduct, larceny, drug offenses, etc. I also served as the prosecuting attorney for the Town of Cheraw, and as such, I prosecuted first offense DUI's in Town Court. The issues involved in these cases have included evidentiary issues, the sufficiency of searches and warrants, and the development of factual

As my civil practice has grown, my criminal practice in the past five years has been limited largely to traffic court and some DUI work.

With respect to civil litigation, my practice during the past five years has included work in the area of foreclosure actions, condemnations, workers' compensation and tort actions. The tort actions in which I have been involved have included automobile accident cases, premises liability cases, slander, malicious prosecution, abuse of process and false arrest and imprisonment. The issues involved have included contributory and comparative negligence; the Statute of Limitations; proximate cause of injuries; discovery; removal to Federal Court; various motions including Motions to Compel and Motions for Summary Judgment; punitive damages; preparation of request to charge and post trial motions. I have taken approximately 250 depositions in the last five years, and those depositions would include both lay persons and medical experts. I have represented both Plaintiffs and Defendants, and I have been involved as sole counsel in approximately 300 civil actions during the past five years. I would estimate that I have tried approximately 40 cases before a jury during that period of time."
Mr. Harris reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Federal:   4 to 5;

(b)   State:     150 to 175."
Mr. Harris reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Civil:     75%;

(b)   Criminal:   10%;

(c)   Domestic:   15%."
Mr. Harris reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Jury:     15-20%;

(b)   Non-jury:   5-10%."
Mr. Harris provided that he most often served as sole counsel.

The following is Mr. Harris' account of his five most significant litigated matters:

"(a)   Linda Martin, et al. v. Mullins Motors, Inc. An automobile accident case in which I represented the defendant. There were four plaintiffs, three of whom where making bodily injuries

(b)   Cynthia Wallace and William Wallace v. County of Chesterfield and First Federal. This was a foreclosure action in which I represented the lender, First Federal. The case was significant because at issue was whether First Federal's mortgage lien of approximately $90,000.00 was void by virtue of the fact that the property had been sold for delinquent property taxes. The central issue was whether the taxing authority had complied with statutes governing properties sold for delinquent taxes. It was an interesting case, and to the best of my knowledge there was no direct case law on point. The trial court held that the taxing authority had not complied with the applicable statutes, and ruled that any sale of the property was made subject to the mortgage lien.

(c)   Michael Crocker v. Harry Avant. This was an automobile accident case in which I represented the defendant. The case involved underinsured motorist coverage, and was filed in Federal Court. The plaintiff sustained a neck fracture and underwent subsequent neck surgery, and had incurred about $50,000.00 in medical specials. Some of the issues involved included the potential for punitive damages, as it was alleged that the defendant had been drinking, and the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury (some of the records indicated the plaintiff had a preexisting neck condition). The case involved a Scheduling Order, which included mediation, and the suit was eventually settled for $225,000.00.

(d)   In the Matter of the Estate of Estrada Thomas. This was an estate file in Probate Court, and the plaintiff filed suit to set aside the will of the decedent. I represented the Estate and advocated the position that the original will was valid. Suit was filed in Probate Court, and the case was removed to Circuit Court. The case involved a number of issues including competency of the decedent; the proper execution of a will; whether certain notices had been delivered to the beneficiaries as prescribed by the Probate Code; and the interpretation

(e)   J.C. Sharper v. Katherine Powe. This suit is memorable to me because it is the first civil case I tried in Circuit Court. I represented the plaintiff and the issue was whether he owned his house by virtue of adverse possession. He did not have a deed to the property, and the issue was whether he had held the property openly and notoriously and hostile as to all others. This case was tried before a jury, and the jury determined that my client owned the property through adverse possession.

The following is Mr. Harris's account of civil appeals he has personally handled:

"(a)   Donald G. Moore, Appellant v. Pamela C. Moore, Respondent, S.C. Supreme Court, decided March 26, 1990.

(b)   Max Dafoe Evans, Appellant v. Helen Loree Evans, Respondent, S.C. Supreme Court, decided April 9, 1990.

(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Mr. Harris' temperament would be excellent.

(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Pee Dee Citizens Advisory Committee reported: "C. Anthony Harris has achieved a varied perspective in his service as a legislator and 'small town' lawyer which will serve him well should he be elected to the bench. In his interview, Mr. Harris expressed an interest in serving as a Circuit Court judge so that he might view and participate in the administration of justice across our state. He would like to learn from lawyers from a variety of backgrounds. All Committee members agreed that Mr. Harris was bright and well recommended by his local community. The Committee appreciates Mr. Harris' determination to carry his desire to be an 'adversary without being adversarial' to the bench. Based upon our investigation and interview, we find that C. Anthony Harris, Jr. is qualified for election to the Circuit Court."
Mr. Harris is married to Laura Margaret Reynolds. He has three children: C. Anthony Harris, III, age 4; and Margaret-Jean Harris and Lawton Reynolds Harris, twins, age 1.
Mr. Harris reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   South Carolina Bar;

(b)   South Carolina Defense Lawyers Association."
Mr. Harris provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:

"(a)   First United Methodist Church of Cheraw, South Carolina;

(b)   Cheraw Rotary Club (Scholarship Chairman);

(c)   Phi Beta Kappa;

(d)   Cheraw Chamber of Commerce (past President);

(e)   Chesterfield County Coordinating Counsel (past chairman);

(f)   First Citizens Bank Advisory Board."

Mr. Harris further provided:

"I have been in the private practice of law for 171/2 years, and I have practiced in all of the South Carolina Courts. My practice has included a wide array of legal subjects, and my clients have been from all socio-economic classes. I believe I have a well rounded background in both the law and human nature, and also feel that I have the temperament necessary to serve as a judge."

The Commission was impressed with Mr. Harris' demeanor, varied legal experience and history of public service. He was found to be qualified and was nominated for service as a judge of the Circuit Court.

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Hayes meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Mr. Hayes was born on August 6, 1958. He is 44 years old and a resident of Spartanburg, South Carolina. Mr. Hayes provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1984.

(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Hayes.
Mr. Hayes demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges,

(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;

(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;

(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Mr. Hayes testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.

(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:

The Commission found Mr. Hayes to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Hayes described his continuing legal education during the past five years as follows:
"2002:   NALS, Federal Court Overview. Topics included U.S. Attorney's Office, U.S. Probation Office, Court Reporting, Clerk of Court's Office Procedures, Jury Selection, Automated Faxing System, PACER, U.S.D.C. Web Page;
2001:     ATLA, Litigating Nursing Home Cases;
2000:     SCTLA, Auto Torts XXIII;
2000:     SCCCLC, South Carolina Nursing Home Negligence;
2000:     SCCCLC, The Art of Advocacy II;
1999:     SC CLE, Damages Litigation Strategies for Plaintiffs & Defendants;
1999:     Served on S.C. Commission on Lawyer Conduct;
1999:     SCTLA, Auto Torts XXII;

Member of the Commission on Lawyer Conduct (Grievance Board). I have received some ethic credit for the past service."
Mr. Hayes reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:

"(a)   1999: Instructor through the Lorman Institute on the educational issue of 'Hot Topics in South Carolina School Law,' focusing on search and seizure issue in schools and drug testing;

(b)   I have also presented to various educational-related groups as a result of my affiliation with the State School Boards Association on a variety of topics including search and seizure, drug testing of students, disciplining of handicapped children under IDEA, etc."
Mr. Hayes reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.

(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Mr. Hayes did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Hayes did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Hayes has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Mr. Hayes was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.

(5)   Reputation:
Mr. Hayes reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating is "AV."

Mr. Hayes provided the following report of public offices he has held:

"(a)   Commission Member, Spartanburg Memorial Auditorium. Appointed approximately 1994;

(b)   Chairman, Spartanburg Memorial Auditorium, 2000-present. Appointed by Spartanburg County Counsel."

(6)   Physical Health:
Mr. Hayes appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(7)   Mental Stability:
Mr. Hayes appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

(8)   Experience:
Mr. Hayes was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1984.

Mr. Hayes described his legal experience since law school as follows:
"From August 1994 to July 1995, I served as judicial clerk to the Honorable E.C. Burnett, III, then Circuit Court Judge for the Seventh Judicial Circuit of the State of South Carolina.

In August 1995, I became an associate with the general practice firm of Burts, Turner, Hammett, Harrison, and Rhodes. After eighteen months, I was made a full partner in the law firm. Duties included

On January 1, 1991, the firm of Harrison and Hayes was established. The character of my practice became more focused on education law and more complex civil litigation.

In January 2000, the law firm of Harrison, White, Smith, Hayes & Coggins was formed. My primary focus in the practice is complex civil litigation, education law-related work, and assistance with complex criminal litigation."

Mr. Hayes provided the following additional information regarding his experience in civil and criminal matters:

"The primary focus of my private practice has been on the civil side of the court system. However, I have served as assistant counsel in several significant criminal cases handled by our firm. In the early part of 1991, I participated in the criminal defense trial of a gentleman accused of criminal sexual conduct. My primary role in the trial of the case was to be the lead counsel on all legal and procedural issues. Unique to this case was the State's attempt to exclude the alleged child victim's testimony before the jury. After a pre-trial hearing, the judge denied the State's motion to allow the alleged victim to testify through videotape. I am presently participating as counsel in the defense of an individual accused of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature. This case is unique in that we are preparing a defense based upon the insanity of the defendant. I am also serving as counsel in the case of a gentleman charged with murder. The uniqueness of this case is that the gentleman is alleged to have committed murder by being intoxicated while operating a vehicle. In all of these cases, Jackson v. Deno hearings have been or will be required.

In regards to the civil litigation, I have primarily represented the plaintiff's side of the bar. However, I have had the opportunity to represent clients as a defendant. At one point, I even served as defense counsel on behalf of the S.C. Insurance Reserve Fund.

As a plaintiff's attorney, I have enjoyed a very eclectic litigation practice. My partner, Ben Harrison, and I successfully tried one of the first personal injury cases against an electrical cooperative based on the theory of failure to inspect electrical power lines. We also tried a week long medical malpractice case based against a doctor's group for failure to diagnose meningitis. Even though unsuccessful, the clients bestowed upon my partner and me plaques with an engraved message

I have had the privilege to represent several educational entities in the upstate. Included in these is the S.C. School for the Deaf and the Blind. I recently served as the lead trial attorney in a case where students who had a history of aggressive and violent behavior were being placed at the School for the Deaf and the Blind. Based upon the theory of present danger to themselves and to others, we obtained injunctive relief stopping placement of the children on the campus of the School for the Deaf and the Blind.

Frequently, my practice deals with complex insurance coverage issues. I recently was successful in trying an insurance coverage case that resulted in an order of the court establishing $500,000 in insurance coverage for a neurologically impaired child. The insurance coverage was established through a policy of insurance issued to a motorcycle dealership located in North Carolina and involved issues not only related to insurance policy interpretation but also application of foreign laws. The child had been a passenger on a motorcycle recently purchased from the dealership.

As in most litigation matters, many of the cases resolve themselves prior to trial. However, frequent motion practice occurs. We recently concluded several assisted living and nursing home cases."
Mr. Hayes reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Federal:   frequent;

(b)   State:     frequent."
Mr. Hayes reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Civil:     85%;

(b)   Criminal:   10%;

(c)   Domestic:   5%."
Mr. Hayes reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:

"(a)   Jury:     5%;

(b)   Non-jury:   50%."
Mr. Hayes provided that he most often served as sole counsel. However, due to the complexity of many of the cases, his firm assigns two or more lawyers and as such he generally serves as co-counsel.

The following is Mr. Hayes' account of his most significant litigated matters:

"(a)   S.C. School for the Deaf and the Blind v. Altreo Quattlebaum. This matter was equitable nature. However, the significance of this case is that it arose out of a factual situation that potentially could have exposed children already suffering from handicapping conditions to two students who had demonstrated a potential for violence to themselves and to others. This case filtered from underlying systemic issues in South Carolina as they relate to the management and care of severely mentally impaired children in the State of South Carolina.

(b)   Murray v. Broad River Electrical Cooperative. This case was significant because it involved a theory of liability against an electric cooperative for failure to inspect the location of electrical transmission lines. The trial of the case demanded a historical review of the practices of an electrical cooperative, the interplay of federal governmental regulations, and violations of care.

(c)   Adams v. Texfi, 341 S.E. 401, 535 S.E.2d 124 (2000).

(d)   Adams v. Texfi, 314 S.C. 313, 443 S.E.2d 913 (S.C. App. 1994).

(e)   Adams v. Texfi, 330 S.C. 305, 498 S.E.2d 885 (S.C. App. 1998).

(f)   Adams v. Texfi, 320 S.C. 213, 464 S.E.2d 109 (1995).   The Adams v. Texfi case lasted almost ten years. The case dealt with a relatively obscure workers' compensation provision that dealt with the appropriate showing for dependency for purposes of a step-child to receive workers' compensation death benefits.

(g)   James Hall v. Federated Mutual, Case #99-CP-11-283.   This was an insurance coverage case that established liability coverage through a motorcycle dealership located in North Carolina for an accident that occurred in South Carolina. The dealership had recently sold the motorcycle to an alleged at-fault driver. The significance of the case is that it allowed a neurologically injured child the opportunity to receive long-term benefits. After the judge's ruling, the case was ultimately settled.

(h)   Virginia Surratt v. Diversco, Workers' Compensation file #9903593. This was a workers' compensation case that was tried before the Single Commissioner and reviewed by the Full Commission Panel. While monetarily not a significant case in comparison to some others, this case created an exception to the exception that injuries that occur during travel to and from work are not compensable. The claimant was a poorly educated, minimum-wage janitorial worker. Her employer picked her up from home and took her to work literally one

The following is Mr. Hayes' account of civil appeals he has personally handled:

"(a)   Justice v. BMG Distributing, Inc., 318 S.C. 359, 458 S.E.2d 35 (1995);

(b)   Adams v. Texfi, 341 S.E. 401, 535 S.E.2d 124 (2000);

(c)   Adams v. Texfi, 314 S.C. 313, 443 S.E.2d 913 (S.C. App. 1994);

(d)   Adams v. Texfi, 330 S.C. 305, 498 S.E.2d 885 (S.C. App. 1998);

(e)   Adams v. Texfi, 320 S.C. 213, 464 S.E.2d 109 (1995);

(f)   Osteen v. Greenville County School District, 333 S.C. 43, 508 S.E.2d 21 (1998);

(g)   Tanielle v. Osborn, 312 S.C. 473, 441 S.E.2d 329 (S.C. App. 1994);

(h)   Hendrickson v. Spartanburg County School District Five, 307 S.C. 108, 413 S.E.2d 871 (App. 1992)."

(9)   Judicial Temperament:

The Commission believes that Mr. Hayes' temperament would be excellent.

(10)   Miscellaneous:

The Upstate Citizens Advisory Committee reported: The Committee finds Mr. Hayes "to be a most competent lawyer. His qualifications greatly exceed the expectations set forth in the evaluative criteria."
Mr. Hayes is not married. He does not have any children.
Mr. Hayes reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:

"(a)   S.C. Bar;

(b)   S.C. Trial Lawyers Association;

(c)   American Trial Lawyers Association;

(d)   S.C. School Boards Association;

(e)   American Bar Association;

(f)   S.C. Council of School Attorneys;

(g)   S.C. Federal Bar Association."

"(a)   Spartanburg Memorial Auditorium. Chairman, Board of Commissioners;

(b)   Boys and Girls Club at Chesnee Elementary School; Organizing member;

(c)   Commission on Lawyer Conduct (Grievance Board)."

Mr. Hayes additionally reported the following:

"One aspect of my service on the Spartanburg Memorial Auditorium Commission of which I am most proud is the recent completion of a 10.5 million dollar renovation. When I came onto the Board, the facility had no long-range plan. I was honored to have been selected as Chairman of the Long-Range Planning Committee. We formulated long-range plans that included making the building handicapped accessible and extensive expansion and renovation of the existing facility. Working cooperatively with county government and with the support of the city and delegation members, we secured financing for the improvements. The Commission has recently taken further steps to try to assure the financial accountability of the Auditorium with the establishment of a 504(c)3 foundation account with the Spartanburg County Foundation and the hiring of a development officer."

The Commission commented on Mr. Hayes' reputation for being an intelligent, industrious and evenly-tempered attorney. He was found to be qualified and was nominated for service as a judge of the Circuit Court.

Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Chief Judge Hearn since her candidacy for re-election was uncontested and no complaints were received.
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Hearn meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Chief Judge on the Court of Appeals.
Judge Hearn was born on January 30, 1950. She is 52 years old and a resident of Conway, South Carolina. Judge Hearn provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least

Member, Executive Board (2001-present);

Education Chair, Executive Board (2001-present)."
Judge Hearn further provided that she was a member of the South Carolina Board of Bar Examiners from 1984-1986.
The Commission found Judge Hearn to have provided valuable leadership and service to the Court of Appeals and to be qualified for re-election as Chief Judge.

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Hemlepp meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Mr. Hemlepp was born on October 4, 1965. He is 37 years old and a resident of Winnsboro, South Carolina. Mr. Hemlepp provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1992.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Hemlepp.
Mr. Hemlepp demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Mr. Hemlepp reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Mr. Hemlepp testified he has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Mr. Hemlepp testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Mr. Hemlepp to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

This case was significant to me for several reasons. First of all, I was quite proud of the personal progress my client made throughout this ordeal. By the end of the case, she was a vibrant and empowered person who was able to hold her head up and take care of herself. I have heard that she continues to do well and I believe I helped her with that process. The case was professionally significant because, although it began as a routine divorce, it touched upon so many different issues: family law, domestic violence, criminal law, bankruptcy law, and insurance law.

The trial went very well and my victim was a wonderful, intelligent witness. Onlookers in the courtroom were convinced of his guilt and eventual conviction. After closing arguments, but before the

When court began, outside of the presence of the jury I moved for dismissal of the charges with prejudice, but gave my apologies to the court that I was unable to give a grounds. Of course, defense counsel consented and the case was dismissed. It was a difficult decision to take a felony trial and give up. But this case was significant to me because I feel that my ethical nature was being tested and that I passed. I had caught victims lying before, but this was the first case to go so far before I discovered the truth. It is a prosecutor's ethical duty to serve justice, not to win cases. I feel that justice was served by that dismissal."
Mr. Hemlepp reported that he has not personally handled any civil appeals.
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Mr. Hemlepp's temperament would be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Piedmont Citizens Advisory Committee found Mr. Hemlepp "qualified without reservations."
Mr. Hemlepp is married to Elizabeth Blair Barrineau Hemlepp. He has two children: William Michael, III, age 10; and Patricia Elizabeth Blair, age 5.
Mr. Hemlepp reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a)   South Carolina Bar;
(b)   S.C. Criminal Law Council;
(c)   Fairfield County Bar;
(d)   National District Attorney's Association;

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Josey meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Mr. Josey was born on November 28, 1960. He is 42 years old and a resident of Florence, South Carolina. Mr. Josey provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1985.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Josey.
Mr. Josey demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.

A.   An Analysis of Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp.-Are Punitive Damages and Exclusive Federal Regulation Consistent? 36 S.C.L. Rev. 689 (1985).

B.   Annual Survey of South Carolina Law (Labor and Employment Section), 36 S.C.L. Rev. 179 (1984).

Employment Discrimination and Title VII: Appropriate Conceptual Frameworks for Different Claims.

Fetal Vulnerability Plan: Disparate Treatment Absent Intent.

Title VII and The Sexually Offensive Work Environment: A Warranty of Workability.

Wildcat Strikes and Local Union Liability.
(b)   The United States Attorney's Office published a quarterly (or so) newsletter primarily for law enforcement agencies and I contributed articles to that publication (part inspirational and part educational)."
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Mr. Josey did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Josey did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Josey has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Mr. Josey was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's

I have handled numerous other civil appeals. I have generally enjoyed composing briefs. I have recently completed briefings in two appeals that are presently pending-one in the South Carolina Court of Appeals (Wise v. Jarrell) and one in the Fourth Circuit (Ballwenz v. Precision Communications)."
Mr. Josey further provided information concerning the criminal appeals he has handled:
"(a)   United States v. Henry Monroe Rayford, a/k/a Junebug, District Case No. 4:92-216, Appellate No. 93-5423.   This was a federal criminal prosecution involving a conspiracy to possess drugs with an attempt to distribute as well as allegations of money laundering. The case is significant because the money laundering conviction was reversed (unpublished opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, February 7, 1995) based upon the trial court's erroneous omission of evidence. I represented the defendant Rayford (there were multiple defendants with differing appellate issues, but one composite brief was submitted).
(b)   United States v. Benjamin Harden, et al., Appeal Record No. 97-4791. This was an unsuccessful appeal from the trial court's dismissal of the indictment for violation of the Speedy Trial Act. As United States Attorney, I began personal work on this matter following the trial court's dismissal. I prepared the brief with assistance from Assistant United States Attorney Scarlett A. Wilson (now Assistant Solicitor) (she signed the final brief) and I argued the matter before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
(c)   State v. Michael White.   This is actually an on-going matter felony DUI matter but I list it because it is the only criminal appeal that I recall handling in the State system. I was not trial counsel and the matter arises more in the form of a post-conviction jurisdictional challenge. This disclosure does not breach client confidentiality as the entire matter has been candidly discussed with the Assistant Solicitor in an effort to find a compromise solution. Because of the unusual procedural position of the

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. King meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Mr. King was born on February 7, 1941. He is 61 years old and a resident of Spartanburg, South Carolina. Mr. King provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1968.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. King.

IADC, Annual Meeting, Jul. 8, 2002, 3 hrs;
2001:     LWTM, Work Flow Planning, May 18, 2001, 2.5 hrs;

SCMAA, Annual Meeting, Nov. 30, 2001, 8.42 hrs;
2000:     AHCA, Longterm Care Litigation, Aug. 3, 2000, 10.5 hrs;

SCMAA, Annual Meeting, Dec. 1, 2000, 6.75 hrs;
1999:     IMLA, Annual Conference, Sep. 26-27, 1999, 10 hrs;

DRI, Defending the Nursing Home, Oct. 28, 1999, 10.5 hrs;

SCMAA, Annual Meeting, Dec. 3, 1999, 5 hrs;
1998:     S.C. Bar, Products Liability-The Complex Case, Oct. 23, 1998, 6 hrs;

AHCA, Legal Defense Conference, Nov. 12, 1998, 9 hrs;

SCMAA, Annual Meeting, Dec. 4, 1998, 5 hrs;
1997:     LWTM, Firm Retreat: Strengthening Client Relations, Mar. 15, 1997, 5.5 hrs;

S.C. Bar, Advanced Construction Law in S.C., Sep. 19, 1997, 5 hrs;

IMLA, Annual Conference, Nov.17, 1997, 5 hrs.
(IADC - International Association of Defense Counsel);
(LWTM - Leatherwood Walker Todd & Mann, P.C.);

"July 1968-July 1976:

Means, Evins, Browne & Hamilton and successor Butler, Means, Evins & Browne, Spartanburg, South Carolina. Entry level associate through partner. Work included real estate, administrative law and general litigation, primarily related to automobile and personal injury defense.

July 8, 1969-July 9, 1971:

City Prosecutor, City of Spartanburg. Prosecuted criminal and traffic cases in Municipal Court.
July 1976-July 1992:

King and Cole and successors King and Cothran; King, Cothran & Hray, King, Hray & Kanes; and King & Hray, Spartanburg, S.C. Following departure from Butler, Means, Evins & Browne practiced law with Alexander Hray, Jr. from October 1981 and continuing; with James C. Cothran, Jr. from July 1, 1978 through July 31, 1988; with Karen Kanes Floyd from September 1988 through May 1992; with Edward Cole from July 1976 through October 1979. General litigation and workers' compensation.
July 1, 1987 to present:

City Attorney for City of Spartanburg. Principal legal officer for the City of Spartanburg, providing general advice to City Council and the City staff, oversee litigation, preparation and review of all ordinances, resolutions and contracts. Actively involved in City's public-private development.
August 1, 1992 to present:

Leatherwood Walker Todd & Mann, P.C. Practice is primarily litigation related to product liability, nursing home and medical malpractice. Approximately 50% of my time is in the private practice of law."
Mr. King further reported regarding his experience in civil and criminal matters:
"Significant trial experience of civil cases. Cases handled include personal injury, breach of contract, employment, condemnation, product liability, construction, motor vehicle accident and professional liability. Included trials and appeals. Substantial experience in workers' compensation claims. In the last five years, private practice

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Lee meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Court of Appeals.
Judge Lee was born on September 17, 1958. She is 44 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Judge Lee provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1984.

National Judicial College - Advanced Evidence (1 week);

Summary of 1997 Revisions of Lawyer Disciplinary Process & the Ethics Act (2.0);

South Carolina Woman Advocate: Making Practice Perfect (7.5);
1998 - carried over credits from 1997;

Rules, Rules, Rules - S.C. Rules of Civil Procedure (3.0);

South Carolina Woman Advocate (4.25);

Employment and Labor Law (3.0);

Ethics Seminar (3.0);
1999 - carried over credits from 1998;

Annual Criminal Law Update (7.0);

Circuit Judges Orientation School (17.25);

S.C. Judicial Conference (7.25);

S.C. Circuit Judges Conference (6.0);
2000 - carried over credits from 1999;

National Judicial College - General Jurisdiction (58.08);

Annual Criminal Law Update (6.0);

S.C. Circuit Judges Conference (6.5);

S.C. Judicial Conference (7.75);
2001 - carried over credits from 2000;

Annual Criminal law Update (6.0);

S.C. Circuit Judges Conference (7.5);

S.C. Judicial Conference (8.25)."
Judge Lee reported that she has taught the following law-related courses:
"(a)   JCLE, Basic Elements of Proof in the Family Court (Aug. 1985) Topic: Settling the Family Court Record on Appeal;
(b)   Basic Federal Court Practice (Sep. 1985) Topic: Pretrial Orders, Sanctions & Local Rules;
(c)   Drafting Criminal Laws under the Sentencing Classification Act (Nov. 1993);
(d)   Bridge the Gap (May 1996, Mar. 1997, May 1997, Mar. 1998, May 1998) Topic: Practice Tips for the Administrative Law Judge Division;
(e)   1996 That Was the Year That Was (Jan. 1997) Topic: 1996 Update for the Administrative Law Judge Division;
(f)   Rules, Rules, Rules: S.C. Practice & Procedure Update (Mar. 1998) Topic: Rules of the Administrative Law Judge Division;
(g)   South Carolina Woman Advocate: Moving into the Millennium (May 1998)."
Judge Lee reported that she has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Lee did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Judge Lee did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Lee has handled her financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Lee was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:
Judge Lee reported that she is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Lee appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.

Primarily litigation in contract or consumer related issues. Last two years practiced labor and employment related litigation;
1989-94:     Staff Counsel, S.C. Legislative Council.

Drafting legislation and amendments for members of the General Assembly in the areas of transportation, crime, corrections and prisons, and education;
1994-1999:     Administrative Law Judge.

Presiding over administrative hearing relating to insurance, environmental permitting, alcoholic beverages, wages, taxes, video poker, bingo, appeals from occupational licensing boards, and hearings on regulations promulgated by certain state agencies;
1999-2002:     Circuit Court Judge.

Court of general jurisdiction in criminal and civil matters. Appellate jurisdiction over municipal, magistrate cases as well as administrative agencies and boards or commissions."
Judge Lee reported the frequency of her court appearances prior to being elected to a judgeship as follows:
"(a)   Federal:   90% of the cases I handled in private practice were in federal court (1984-89);
(b)   State:       10% of the cases I handled in private practice were in state court (1984-89);"
Judge Lee reported the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters prior to being elected to a judgeship as follows:
"(a)   Civil:     (1984-89) 80%;
(b)   Criminal:   (1984-89) 20%;
(c)   Domestic:   handled 2-3 court appointed cases between 1984-89."

"I did not handle any criminal appeals while in private practice. However, as a circuit court judge I have presided over appeals from magistrate and municipal court cases involving criminal matters."
Judge Lee reported the following regarding her prior judicial positions:
"Elected by the General Assembly in February 1994 to the office of Administrative Law Judge which is a quasi-judicial function within the executive branch of government. Jurisdiction is limited to fact finding within the context of administrative hearings involving taxes, licensing, permitting and rate-making. Act as an appellate body in matters involving occupational licensing and foster care licensing, among

(d)   Jordan, et al. v. Holt, et al., 96-CP-26-3792.   This was a non-jury trial in partners in a failed restaurant venture sought dissolution of the partnership, an accounting of the assets and claims for damages from the operation of the business. The trial lasted one week and involved voluminous documents, checks, records and photographs;

(e)   Kenneth Curtis v. State of South Carolina (Greenville County). Mr. Curtis sought to enjoin the state from enforcing a statute prohibiting the sale of urine in interstate commerce and to declare the statute unconstitutional."
Judge Lee reported the following unsuccessful candidacies:
"Candidate for Circuit Court At-Large Seat 10. Election in April 1997; withdrew two days before the election. Seat won by James R. Barber, III. Also candidate for Circuit Court At-Large Seats 1 and 7; withdrew candidacy when Commission nominated me as a candidate for Seat 11 in February 1999.
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Lee's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee did not submit a report on any candidate to the Commission during the screening process.
Judge Lee is married to Kenzil Franklin Summey. She has two children: Julian Christopher Summey, age 14; and Amanda Leigh Summey, age 11.
Judge Lee reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a)   American Bar Association (1985-90);
(b)   South Carolina Bar Association;
(c)   South Carolina Women Lawyers Association;
(d)   Richland County Bar Association;
(e)   Young Lawyers Division representative to the Committee on Continuing Legal Education (July 1987-1988);
(f)   Associate Commissioner, Board of Grievances and Discipline (1987-1989)."
Judge Lee provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
"(a)   Columbia Chapter of The Links, Inc. (1987-present): President 1994-98; Vice President 1993-94; Corresponding Secretary 1990-93;
(b)   Columbia Chapter, Jack and Jill of America, Inc. (1992-present): Parliamentarian 1995-97, 2001-2003;
(c)   St. Peter's Catholic School Board (1993-97: Chairperson 1995-96);
(d)   St. Peter's Catholic Church Parish Pastoral Council (1998-2001);
(e)   Honored by the S.C. Chapter of the National Association of Bench and Bar Spouses in April 1999;

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Limbaugh meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Mr. Limbaugh was born on August 18, 1957. He is 45 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Mr. Limbaugh provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1989.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Limbaugh.
Mr. Limbaugh demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Mr. Limbaugh reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Mr. Limbaugh testified he has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Mr. Limbaugh testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Mr. Limbaugh to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

1990-97:     Civil Litigation (defense and plaintiffs) with Willcox, Buyck & Williams, Florence, South Carolina;
1997-98:     Chief Legal Counsel to the Governor of South Carolina;
1998-2000:     Government relations and civil litigation with Willcox, Buyck & Williams in Columbia, South Carolina;
2000-Present:   Self-employed government relations consultant in Columbia, South Carolina."
Mr. Limbaugh reported the following regarding his experience in civil and criminal matters:
"I have not handled any criminal matters in the past five years. However, I have been a prosecutor and a public defender earlier in my legal career. During my service in the House of Representatives, I served on the Judiciary Committee and on the Criminal Laws Subcommittee. I was a member of the Conference Committee that developed the final version of the Truth in Sentencing and "Three Strikes" laws. I was a member of the Sentencing Guidelines Commission and the Governor's Task Force on Juvenile Justice. So, while I have not actively practiced criminal law recently, my other experiences have kept me abreast of the changes in that area of the law. Should I be elected to the Circuit Court, I would have to spend a bit more time studying the substantive criminal law and would be delighted to do so.
In the 20 years in which I have practiced law, it has been my pleasure to handle a tremendous variety of litigated matters. The early years of my practice were devoted primarily to criminal matters. As a prosecutor, I began by prosecuting misdemeanors and DUI cases. While these cases are less serious than felonies, they very often gave

"Yarde v. Pan American Life Ins. Co. The case was appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. It is significant because of the complexity of the matter, procedurally and substantively. The decision is unpublished, but a copy of the opinion is available if the Committee is interested in reviewing it."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Mr. Limbaugh's temperament would be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee did not submit a report on any candidate to the Commission during the screening process.
Mr. Limbaugh is married to Nell Quarles Limbaugh. He has two children: Benjamin, age 10; and Leah, age 8.
Mr. Limbaugh reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a)   S.C. Bar Association;
(b)   Florida Bar Association;

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Lloyd meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Mr. Lloyd was born on February 16, 1967. He is 35 years old and a resident of Elgin, South Carolina. Mr. Lloyd provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1993.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Lloyd.
Mr. Lloyd demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Mr. Lloyd reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.

Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Judge Lockemy since his candidacy for re-election was uncontested and no complaints were received.
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Lockemy meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Judge Lockemy was born on September 23, 1949. He is 53 years old and a resident of Dillon, South Carolina. Judge Lockemy provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1974.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Lockemy.
Judge Lockemy demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Lockemy reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Lockemy reported he has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

"(a)   State v. Clair E. Luckabaugh, 327 S.C. 495, 489 S.E.2d 657 (Ct.App. 1997). Key issues involved the admission of   evidence of prior acts, including stories written by the defendant concerning sex with comatose victims at trial under SCRE 401 and 404(b).
Another issue was the testimony of a deaf, partially mute witness of a prior bad act who could only speak French or in sign language.

(b)   Hatchell-Freeman v. Freeman, 340 S.C. 552, 532 S.E.2d 299 (Ct. App. 2000). Decedent killed while a   prisoner at the County jail at the very end of divorce proceedings. Issue: Who controls the estate? - wife (or is she really an ex-wife) or parent of the deceased.

(c)   Pruitt v. S.C. Medical Malpractice Liability JUA, 343 S.C.335, 540 S.E.2d 843 (2001). The case involved whether a structured settlement in a malpractice case was altered when the JUA purchased an annuity.
(d)   Carmichael v. Heggie, 332 S.C. 624, 506 S.E.2d 308 (Ct. App. 1998). The surviving spouse wanted to convey her life estate to her son

Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Judge Maddox since his candidacy for re-election was uncontested and no complaints were received.
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Maddox meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court Judge.
Judge Maddox was born on June 14, 1958. He is 44 years old and a resident of Anderson, South Carolina. Judge Maddox provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1983.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Maddox.
Judge Maddox demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Maddox reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Maddox reported that he has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Maddox reported that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Manning meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Court of Appeals.
Judge Manning was born on December 7, 1950. He is 52 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Judge Manning provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1977.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Manning.
Judge Manning demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Manning reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Manning testified he has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Manning testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.

Judge Manning reported his work experience since graduation from law school as follows:

"1979-1983     Attorney and Counselor at Law, Dillon County, private practice;
1980         Part-time Instructor, Florence-Darlington Technical College;
1983-1989     S.C. Assistant Attorney General;
1988-1989     S.C. Attorney General's Office; Chief of Prosecutions;
1989-1994     Partner, Walker, Morgan & Manning, Lexington, S.C."

(d)   University of South Carolina Bi-Centennial Committee, 1998-2001;
(e)   Children's Justice Force Committee;
(f)   Citizens Summit Steering Committee."

The Commission was favorably impressed with Judge Manning's prior service on the bench and found him to be well qualified for election as a Judge on the Court of Appeals.

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Meadors meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Mr. Meadors was born on September 11, 1956. He is 46 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Mr. Meadors provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1988.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Meadors.
Mr. Meadors demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Mr. Meadors reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Mr. Meadors testified he has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Mr. Meadors testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Mr. Meadors to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Meadors described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"The most recent CLE I have attended was 'Taking Victim Cases to Trials,' August 21-23, 2002, in Columbia. All other continuing legal education has been received at the Solicitors Association Annual Conference and the mid-year meeting of the South Carolina Bar in Charleston. I have complied with all CLE requirements."

I prosecuted cases in magistrate and General Sessions Courts. My caseload was composed of all offenses, from shoplifting to murder.
1991-1995:     Office of the Attorney General.

I was assigned to the State Grand Jury Division. I prosecuted major drug conspiracies throughout the state. The biggest case I tried involved seven co-defendants and lasted three weeks. In addition I handled the first child pornography and money laundering cases for the State Grand Jury. This job involved working with and advising law enforcement agents in the investigation of ongoing criminal operations and historical cases. I prepared and presented witnesses before the State Grand Jury and tried the cases in Circuit Courts throughout the state. I

I am the First Assistant Solicitor for the Fifth Judicial Circuit. In this capacity, I prosecute cases in both Richland and Kershaw Counties. In addition to my responsibilities in Richland County, I am in charge of the daily operations of the Kershaw County office. This includes handling and supervising cases in both General Sessions and Family Court."
Mr. Meadors further reported the following regarding his experience in civil and criminal matters:
"I have been a prosecutor my entire career. I have handled every type of criminal case from magistrate and municipal court offenses to the most serious felonies in Circuit Court, including drug trafficking, criminal sexual conduct cases, burglary, armed robberies and murder. In doing this, I have dealt with all facets of criminal law, including issues such as eyewitness identification, DNA evidence, competency of the defendants, search and seizure and other related issues.
My experience in civil matters includes the handling of and assisting in asset forfeitures in drug cases and driving offenses and judicial commitment proceedings. I think that my trial experience in General Sessions Court provides me with a good foundation which I can build upon to become proficient in Common Pleas Court. The rules of evidence are the same in both criminal and civil trials. I have studied the rules of civil procedure and have followed the changes in the law by reading the Advance Sheets. In addition, I have and will continue to review civil trial transcripts and attend Common Pleas Court whenever possible prior to taking the bench."
Mr. Meadors reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
"(a)   Federal:   none;
(b)   State:     all."
Mr. Meadors reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
"(a)   Civil:     5%;
(b)   Criminal:   95% (20 percent involving juveniles in Family Court)."
Mr. Meadors reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
"(a)   Jury:       10%;
(b)   Non-jury:   90%."

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Milling meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Judge Milling was born on June 6, 1948. He is 54 years old and a resident of Darlington, South Carolina. Judge Milling provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1973.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Milling.
Judge Milling demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Milling reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Milling testified he has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Milling testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Milling to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Milling described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"(a)   Attendance at CLE Seminars, 1997-15.75 hrs, 1998-12.50 hrs;
(b)   Attendance at annual Circuit Court Judges Conferences in 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002;
(c)   Attendance at National Judicial College, General Jurisdiction course, April 3-14, 2000.

Associate with A. Lee Chandler and Benny R. Greer in their partnership from 1973 until 1976, when Chief Justice Chandler (Ret.) was elected Circuit Court Judge for the Fourth Judicial Circuit;
Greer & Milling:

Partner in this firm from 1976 until 1988 when Judge Greer (Ret.) was elected Family Court Judge of the Fourth Judicial Circuit;
Milling Law Firm, P.A.:

Sole practitioner in successor firm to Greer & Milling:

Involved with the general practice of law. Chief areas of practice: Personal injury claims, construction claims, Workers' Compensation cases, real estate matters, Probate matters, utility law, issues relating to construction and application of certain legislative enactments, criminal law, corporate law, divorce and family law, and School law;
Part time Assistant Solicitor for Darlington County:

Served in this capacity from 1977-1980; served again beginning October 1, 1997, to February 10, 1999;
Part time Assistant Public Defender, 1985;
Part time Chief Public Defender from 1986 to l988 and 1994 to 1997;
Town Attorney:

Served as town attorney for Town of Lamar and Town of Society Hill from 1989 until February 10, 1999;
Darlington County School District:

Served as attorney for the District from July 1988, until June 30, 1996."
Judge Milling described his prior judicial service as follows:
"I am presently serving as Circuit Court Judge, At-Large, Seat One, having been elected February 10, 1999. This is a Court of general jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters. Do not hear Family Court matters."
Judge Milling listed the following cases as the most significant he had decided:

Defendant's Motions for Directed Verdict were granted as to all causes of action, except for malicious prosecution and Austin's civil assault. The jury returned verdicts for each of the plaintiffs for actual and punitive damages for the malicious prosecution causes of action, as well as for the civil assault cause of action additionally asserted by Plaintiff Austin. A hearing was held following the trial as to punitive damages and the same were found to be appropriate.

The defendants made post trial motions in each case for a new trial absolute or, in the alternative, a new trial nisi remittitur. These were denied. The defendants thereafter moved for reconsideration, as well as renewing again their post trial motions. I granted the motion for new trial nisi remittitur, and reduced the actual damage and punitive damage awards. The plaintiffs agreed to the remittitur. No Motion to Alter or Amend was made as to the remittitur. Thereafter, the defendants appealed. The Court of Appeals has affirmed, in Opinion Number 2002-UP-259, filed April 4, 2002.
(b)   Elayne Thomas Ann Scott (Brunson) v. John Q. Brunson, Sr., Trustee trust for Robert Ashley Brunson, u/w of Muldrow McCoy Brunson, 1999-CP-43-756. The plaintiff was formerly married to Ashley Brunson, and they are the parents of one (l) child. They separated in 1978. In 1983, Brunson was convicted of trafficking in drugs and absconded and has not been seen or heard from since that time. A divorce was granted to the plaintiff on April 10, 1992, which decree provided for child support. Eventually the plaintiff obtained a judgment against Brunson in the amount of Forty-two thousand, two hundred sixty-two and 82/l00 ($42,262.82) for unpaid child support.

Brunson's father, Muldrow McCoy Brunson, died on September 7, 1995, and made certain provisions for his son by way of a trust set

I granted the summary judgment ruling that Brunson had received a vested interest in the subject property and that his interest was subject to creditors' claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed by Opinion Number 3538 filed July 29, 2002, and currently cited as 2002 W.L. 1733815 (S.C. App. 2002).
(c)   Universal Benefits, Inc. v. James H. McKinney, 1997-CP-43-1185. The plaintiff originally sued the defendant, a former employee, to enforce a covenant not to compete. Subsequent thereto, the plaintiff's attorney filed a motion to be relieved. The Honorable Howard T. King granted the motion and ordered plaintiff to obtain new counsel and be prepared for trial by August 2, 1999.

On August 23, 1999, the Honorable Alison Lee held a roster meeting, which the plaintiff did not attend. The defendant then moved to dismiss the case based upon the failure to prosecute. Judge Lee granted this motion, and her order was served on the plaintiff's managing officer on August 30, 1999. The plaintiff neither filed a Motion to Reconsider or an appeal from Judge Lee's order. The plaintiff thereafter on February 2, 2002, moved to set aside Judge Lee's order, pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4), SCRCP.

By Order dated March 17, 2000, I denied the Motion, finding Judge Lee's Order was not void. The Court of Appeals affirmed, in Opinion Number 3469, filed March 25, 2002, and cited as 561 S.E.2d 559. (S.C. App. 2002).
(d)   State v. Roywickus Cade, 1999-GS16-473. The defendant was charged with armed robbery of a convenience store in Darlington County. He was tried separated from the other two co-defendants and was found guilty of the charge.

In his appeal, he challenged the sufficiency of the indictment and, thus, the jurisdiction of the Court. He alleged the indictment was defective because it did not sufficiently allege that he took the money with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of it. He also alleged the Court erred in admitting evidence of his participation in a carjacking prior to the robbery. The State's evidence was that it was the same car used as the getaway vehicle in the subsequent armed robbery at the convenience store.

The Court of Appeals affirmed my rulings and the conviction in Opinion Number 2002-UP-196 filed March 14, 2002.
(e)   The State v. Jacinto Antonio Bull, 1998 GS16-1492 (Felony DUI), 1998 GS16-1349 (Reckless Homicide), 1998 GS16-1182 (DUS),

The Court of Appeals affirmed my ruling in Opinion Number 3481 filed April 22, 2002, and cited as 564 S.E.2d 351(S.C. App. 2002)."
Judge Milling stated the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies:
"I unsuccessfully ran for Darlington County Council in 1980."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Milling's temperament has and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
The Pee Dee Citizens Advisory Committee reported: "The Honorable John M. Milling is qualified for re-election to the position of Circuit Court Judge in the State of South Carolina. As a result of its investigation of and previous interview with Judge Milling, the Committee recommends this candidate without reservation."
Judge Milling is married to Gail Stokes Milling. He has three children: Jonathan McKey Milling, age 29; David Lee Milling, age 26; and Helen Dodson Milling, age 22.
Judge Milling reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a)   Darlington County Bar Association, held position of President in 1991;
(b)   South Carolina Bar Association."
Judge Milling provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
"(a)   Elder, Darlington Presbyterian Church;
(b)   Member Darlington Kiwanis Club. Resigned upon election to Judiciary;
(c)   Board Member and Treasurer of Grove Hill Cemetery, a non-profit corporation. Resigned upon election to Judiciary."

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Morehead meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Court of Appeals.
Judge Morehead was born on September 6, 1946. He is 56 years old and a resident of Florence, South Carolina. Judge Morehead provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1973.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Morehead.
Judge Morehead demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Morehead reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Morehead testified he has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Morehead testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Morehead to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Morehead described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"August 2002   Annual Judicial Conference;

(i)   Sixth District Representative of the Young Lawyers Division, 1978-1980;

(ii)   Lawyer Referral Committee, 1974-1980;

(iii)   Practice and Procedures Committee, 1980-1982;

(iv)   Commission of Continuing Legal Education and Specialization, 1992-2000."

Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Judge Newman since his candidacy for re-election was uncontested and no complaints were received.
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Newman meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Judge Newman was born on November 7, 1951. He is 51 years old and a resident of Greeleyville, South Carolina. Judge Newman provided in his application that he has been a resident of South

General law practice concentrating on the representation of plaintiffs in civil matters and defendants in criminal matters;
1977-1982     Partner, Belcher and Newman, Cleveland, Ohio.

General law practice; civil and criminal;
1982-1994     Law Office of Clifton Newman, Kingstree and Columbia, S.C.

General law practice; civil and real estate;
1994-2000       Managing Attorney, Newman and Sabb, P.A., Kingstree, Lake City and Columbia, S.C.

General law practice; civil and real estate; Assistant Solicitor, Third Judicial Circuit; Criminal prosecution;
2000-Present     Circuit Court Judge, At-Large Seat 3."
Judge Newman considered his most significant orders to have occurred in the following cases:
"(a)     The South Carolina Department of Consumer Affairs v. First Freedom Financial Corporation, et al.;
(b)   Cainhoy Methodist Church and Cemetery v. The City of Charleston, et al.;
(c)   Green Tree Financial Corporation n/k/a Conseco Finance Corporation v. Andre C. Flemings, et al.;
(d)   Jerry Dicks, et al. v. The State of South Carolina, et al.;
(e)   The Beach Company v. Twillman, Ltd. d/b/a The Washington Pen Company, Court of Appeals Opinion No. 3532."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Newman's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:

The Pee Dee Citizens Advisory Committee reported: "The Honorable Clifton Newman is seeking re-election to the Circuit Court, At-Large Seat 3. His interview for his initial election in 2000 having been conducted by the Midlands Citizens Committee, the Pee Dee Citizens Committee asked Judge Newman to meet with us so that we might acquaint ourselves with him as he is now a resident of Kingstree. Our preliminary investigation had indicated great support for Judge Newman's continued service. Members of the Bar and public found Judge Newman to be of even temperament and of keen intellect. These findings were consistent with the 2000 report of the Midland's Citizens Committee and our own interview. Based upon our investigation and interview, we find that the Honorable Clifton Newman is qualified for re-election to the Circuit Court."
Judge Newman is married to Patricia Lynette Blanton Newman. He has four children: Corwyn Cornell, age 29; Jocelyn Thraine, age 24; Kellee Denise, age 21; and Brian DeQuincey, age 19.
Judge Newman reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a)   South Carolina Bar Association;
(b)   Ohio Bar Association (inactive)."
Judge Newman provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Patterson meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Judge Patterson was born on September 2, 1940. He is 62 years old and a resident of Greenville, South Carolina. Judge Patterson provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1966.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Patterson.
Judge Patterson demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Patterson reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Patterson testified he has not:

Associate with Howard Ballenger, Attorney, Walhalla, S.C.;
January 1969-May 1972:

Associate and Partner with Love, Thornton, Arnold & Thomason Law Firm, Greenville, S.C.;
May 1972-May 1976:

Partner with Cheros and Patterson Law Firm, Greenville, S.C.;
May 1976-December 1980:

Sole Practitioner in Greenville, S.C.;
December 1980-June 1991:

Family Court Judge, 13th Judicial Circuit, Greenville, S.C.;
July 1991-Present:

Resident Circuit Court Judge, 13th Judicial Circuit, Greenville, S.C."
Judge Patterson provided the following account of his prior judicial positions:
"(a)   Appointed Family Court Judge in December 1980;
(b)   Elected Family Court Judge, 13th Judicial Circuit, March 10, 1981 and served until June 1991;
(c)   Elected Resident Circuit Court Judge, 13th Judicial Circuit, July 1991-Present."
Judge Patterson provided the following list of significant orders:
"(a)   David H. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, Case No. 88-CP-10-66, 404 S.E.2d 895 (1991); 505 U.S. 1003, 112 S.Ct. 2886, 120 L.Ed.2d 798 (1992) 424 S.E.2d 484 (1992);
(b)   Cornelia Whitner v. State of South Carolina, Case No. 93-CP-39-347, 328 S.C. 1, 492 S.E.2d 777 (1997); 523 U.S. 1145, 118 S.Ct. 1857;

(c)   Theodore A. Wilson v. LeAnn O. Watson,   Case No. 84-DR-23-1722, 321 S.E.2d 883 (1986);
(d)   Darrell Pruitt v. State of South Carolina,   Case No. 90-CP-23-2409;
(e)   State of South Carolina v. Tim G. Phillips,   Indictment No. 93-GS-23-8598."
Judge Patterson provided that he has never held employment while serving as a judge.
Judge Patterson further provided that he was an unsuccessful candidate in re-election to the South Carolina House in 1971 and in election for Solicitor for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, in 1974.

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Shealy meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Judge Shealy was born on July 30, 1954. He is 48 years old and a resident of Gaffney, South Carolina. Judge Shealy provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1979.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Shealy.
Judge Shealy demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Shealy reported that he has made campaign expenditures for postage necessary to mail the judicial application.
Judge Shealy testified he has not:

Prosecuted criminal cases via courts martial in Karlsruhe, Germany;
November 1980-December 1980: Trial Defense Counsel.

Defended criminal cases via courts martial in Karlsruhe, Germany;
December 1980-May 1983: Senior Defense Counsel.

Senior defense counsel for U.S. Army elements supporting Supreme Headquarters, Allied Powers Europe (S.H.A.P.E.) in Mons, Belgium, Allied Forces, Central Europe (A.F.C.E.N.T.) in Brunssum, the Netherlands, and the Northern Army Group (NORTH.A.G.) in northern Germany. Although this sounds impressive, I opened the office and had no legal clerk or staff. I was quartered in Schinnen, The Netherlands;
May 1983-September 1983: Trial Counsel.

Same as above but for Fort Jackson, South Carolina;

General practice of law. Here I did do a fair amount of civil practice, including slip and fall, car accidents, even an attempt to take a federal park away from the federal government. I also did court-appointed work and initiated work toward establishing a public defender office;
December 1985-February 1994: Attorney-Advisor, U.S. Army.

I lived in Rhineberg, Germany and Schinnen, The Netherlands. My duties were to provide legal assistance and personal income tax services to soldiers and dependants. I also advised the commander on international law matters involving the community as well as adjusted claims against the United States as the Claims Officer. I provided administrative law support. The most interesting aspect of this position was that I was trained to be a foreign trial observer. I observed German and Dutch trials involving U.S. forces members and reported their 'fundamental fairness' through Army channels to the U.S. State Department;
February 1994-June 1997: Public Defender for Cherokee County.

Handled General Sessions, Department of Juvenile Justice, and Department of Social Services matters as appointed defense counsel.
July 1997-June 1998: Associate, The Ross Law Firm.

In coordination with Mr. Ross, I assisted in contractual matters, business law matters, civil lawsuits in which I merely provided support, assisted in property law and continued my criminal defense practice.
July 1998-present: Thomas E. Shealy, Attorney at Law.

Criminal defense practice, family practice. I have done some property, probate, and civil claim law. I do Special Referee and particularly enjoy doing Guardian ad Litem work. In July 1999, I became the part-time Municipal Court Judge for the City of Gaffney. While we have added two more part-time judges, I continue to act as the Chief Judge."
Judge Shealy describes his experience in criminal and civil matters as follows:
"I do not have much of a civil practice. I have handled a few car accidents, but found my office was not properly set up for that type litigation. I have represented a local private club in a lawsuit alleging it allowed its employee to rape the plaintiff. Although the individual co-defendant failed to answer interrogatories and therefore they were deemed admitted, we continued the litigation and were prepared for

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Short meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Court of Appeals.
Judge Short was born on January 13, 1947. He is 56 years old and a resident of Chester, South Carolina. Judge Short provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the

1/26   S.C. Bar, Criminal Law Update, 6 JCLE hrs.;

1/5   York County Bar Assoc., Sticks & Stones, Appointed, 3

JCLE hrs.;

5/9   S.C. Assoc. Circuit Judges Conference, 7.5 JCLE hrs.;

7/9   National Judicial College, Reno, NV, Law & the Social       &

Behavioral Sciences, 64 JCLE hrs.;

8/23   S.C. Circuit Court Assoc. Judicial Conference, 8.25       JCLE

hrs.;

2000:

1/21   S.C. Bar, Criminal Law Update, 6 JCLE hrs.;

5/10   S.C. Assoc. Circuit Judges Conference, 6.5 JCLE hrs.;

8/7   National Judicial College, Reno, NV, Media & the       Courts,

52 JCLE hrs.;

1999:

1/22   S.C. Bar, Criminal Law Update, 7 JCLE hrs.;

5/12   S.C. Assoc. Circuit Judges Conference, 6 JCLE hrs.;

7/19-

7/23   National Judicial College, Reno, NV, Constitutional

Criminal Procedure History and Theory of Jurisprudence, 76

JCLE     hrs.;

7/26   National Judicial College, Reno, NV, Judicial Writing,

27.8 JCLE hrs.;

8/5   S.C. Trial Lawyers Assoc. Annual Convention, 12 JCLE

hrs.;

8/19   S.C. Circuit Court Assoc. Judicial Conference, 7.25       JCLE

hrs.;

1998:

1/9   S.C. Circuit Court Judges Assoc., Seminar of Chief Judges

for Circuit and Family Court, 5.25 JCLE hrs.;

1/23   S.C. Bar, Criminal Law Update, 6.5 JCLE hrs.;

5/13   S.C. Assoc. of Circuit Judges Meeting, 6 JCLE hrs.;

8/13   S.C. Trial Lawyers Assoc. Annual Convention, 14.5 JCLE

hrs.;

8/20   S.C. Circuit Court Assoc. Judicial Conference, 8.25 JCLE

hrs.;

1997:

1/24   S.C. Bar, Criminal Law Update, 6.5 JCLE hrs.;

5/14   Circuit Judges Spring Conference, 7.5 JCLE hrs.;

6/27   S.C. Circuit Court Judges Assoc., Seminar of Chief         Judges

for Circuit and Family Court, 5.25 JCLE hrs.;

8/21   S.C. Circuit Court Assoc. Judicial Conference, 8 JCLE

hrs.;

9/28   S.C. Solicitors Assoc. Judicial Conference, 15 JCLE hrs."
Judge Short reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
"(a)   September 15, 1995: South Carolina Legal Secretaries Association. I was the instructor for a Seminar on Rules of Civil Procedure;
(b)   September 30-October 18, 1996: National Judicial College/Reno, Nevada. I served as a Group Facilitator with the faculty for the General Jurisdiction Course for new Judges. I led group discussions four hours each day on a wide variety of legal topics.
(c)   September 29, 1997: South Carolina Solicitors' Conference, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. I spoke on the topic 'Case File Development and Review, A View from the Judiciary'."

Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Judge Stevens since his candidacy for re-election was uncontested and no complaints were received.
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Stevens meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a judge in the Administrative Law Judge Division.
Judge Stevens was born on October 7, 1949. He is 53 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Judge Stevens provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1978.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Stevens.

(2)   Guest lectures at USC Law School, State and Local Tax classes   including:

(a)   Duties and functions of county officials in property taxation;

(b)   Taxation of railroads under the Federal 4-R Act;
(b)   Lecturer at Bar Associations:
(1)   S.C. Bar: Taught Adm. Law for Bridge the Gap each year of 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002;

(2)   S.C. Bar: Annual Convention, Governmental Section, Litigating Before the ALJD, Summer 1999;

(3)   S.C. Bar: 1999, That Was the Year That Was, Review of Changes in Administrative Law;

(4)   Greenville County Tax Bar:

(a)   Remedies and Procedures for Suits Against State Officials;

(b)   Adm. Procedures Before the S.C. Dept. of Revenue;

(5)   Columbia Tax Study Group, Tax Practice Under the Revenue Procedures Act;

(c)   Continuing Legal Education Lectures

(1)   Federation of Tax Administrators, 42 USC Section 1983 in State Court Tax Disputes;

(2)   SE Assoc. of Tax Attorneys:

(a)   Collecting Taxes Under an Automatic Stay Due to Bankruptcy;

(b)   Nexus and Jurisdiction for Taxation of Delaware Holding Companies;

(3)   Vanderbilt Univ.'s Paul J. Hartman Tax Forum:

(a)   Moot Court Presentation on Taxation of Intangibles;

(b)   Geoffrey v. South Carolina: Is the Camel's Nose Under the Tent?;

(4)   Ohio Tax Conference, Intangibles and the Creation of Nexus for Income Tax Purposes;

(5)   S.C. Chamber of Commerce, Taxes and the Bottom Line: New Tax Appeal Process."
Judge Stevens reported that he had published the following books and articles:
"(a)   'Unwanted Assets Spun Off Prior to Acquisition of Wanted Assets' 1980 South Carolina Bar Publication;
(b)   'The Use of Title 42 USC Section 1983 in State Tax Litigation,' 1988 REVENUE ADMINISTRATION;
(c)   'Delaware Subsidiaries Can Still Reduce Tax But More Planning Needed,' March/April 1992 THE JOURNAL OF MULTISTATE TAXATION;

"1978-79:     Stophel, Caldwell & Heggie

General corporate practice with emphasis on taxation;
1979-80:     U.S. Internal Revenue Service

Federal estate and gift tax return examiner;
1980-95:     S.C. Attorney General   /Chief Deputy Attorney General and Director of Tax Division

Issued Atty. Gen. Opinions and responsible for all tax litigation as well as defense of State at all levels from administrative hearings to trials in the state and federal courts;
1995-present:   Administrative Law Judge Division;

Judge presiding over contested cases, appeals and regulation reviews."

(b)   Gaffney Properties as an affiliate of Boyd Management v. Lee S. Harmon, Cherokee County Assessor, 95-ALJ-17-0265-CC, decided November 8, 1995: This case established an innovative method for valuing subsidized housing projects for property tax purposes. The fair market value is based upon adding the value of the rental income stream, the value of the Government's 'interest subsidy,' and the value of the federal income tax credits granted to owners of subsidized housing.

(c)   Oncology Therapies of Greenville, Inc. v. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, Greenville Cancer Center, and Greenville Hospital System, 96-ALJ-07-0205-CC, decided June 6, 1997: This case established that the standard of proof in a Certificate of Need (CON) case is that of the preponderance of the evidence with the Administrative Law Judge acting as the fact-finder and the DHEC Board as the appellate review authority. Further, the case established that an ALJ hearing a CON controversy does not act as

The Upstate Citizens Advisory Committee found Judge Stevens to be "a most competent and excellent jurist. His qualifications greatly exceed the expectations set forth in the evaluative criteria."
Judge Stevens is married to Janice Louise Shapiro Stevens. He has three children: Ryan Nelson Stevens, age 24; Alan Austin Stevens, age 21; Leah Suzanne Stevens, age 13.
Judge Stevens reported that he was a member of the S.C. Bar Association.
Judge Stevens provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organization:
"Publicity Chairman for Chapin Band Booster Club."
Judge Stevens additionally reported that is active in church activities. Recently, he was a Sunday school teacher of an adult class and Bible Study teacher at a senior citizens retirement center.

Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Judge Thomas since her candidacy for re-election was uncontested and no complaints were received.
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Thomas meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Judge Thomas was born on October 20, 1957. She is 45 years old and a resident of Pawleys Island, South Carolina. Judge Thomas provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1986.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Thomas.
Judge Thomas demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Thomas reported that she has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Thomas reported she has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Thomas reported that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Thomas to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

S.C. Circuit Judges Conference;

Judicial Conference;
2000:     Annual Judicial Conference;

S.C. Circuit Judges Conference;
1999:     Annual Criminal Law Update;

Circuit Court Judges Meeting;

Judicial Conference;
1998:     Annual Criminal Law Update;

Judicial Conference;

Circuit Court Judges Association Meeting;
1997:     Annual Criminal Law Update;

Women Lawyer's Association Seminar;

Judicial Conference;

Annual Solicitors' Association Conference;

Circuit Judges Spring Conference."
Judge Thomas reported that she has taught the following law-related courses:
"(a)   August 6, 1993, 'Restructured State Government & The State of Administrative Law', Speaker;
(b)   April 26, 1996, 'So You Want to be a Judge' - Women in Law, Columbia, S.C., Speaker (legislative perspective about judicial elections)."
Judge Thomas reported that she has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Thomas did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Judge Thomas did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Thomas has handled her financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Thomas was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:
Judge Thomas reported that she is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.

Law Offices of Kenneth W. Thornton, Georgetown, S.C.; Associate working in Family and Circuit Court matters;
September 1987-August 1988:

Rubillo & Thomas, Georgetown, S.C.; Partner, Family and Circuit Court matters;
August 1988-January 1993:

Law Office of Paula H. Thomas, Pawleys Island, S.C.; Sole practitioner working in Family and Circuit Court matters;
January 1993-January 1994:

Thomas & Gundling, Pawleys Island, S.C.; Partner working in Family and Circuit Court matters;
January 1994-May 1994:

Lawimore, Thomas, Gundling & Kelaher, PA, Pawleys Island, S.C.; Family and Circuit Court matters;
May 1994-January 1995:

Thomas, Gundling & Kelaher, Pawleys Island, S.C.; Partner, Family and Circuit Court matters;
January 1995-July 1996:

Law Office of Paula H. Thomas, Pawleys Island, S.C.; Sole practitioner, Family and Circuit Court matters."
Judge Thomas provided the following account of her prior judicial positions:
"Elected May 22, 1996, S.C. Circuit Court, At-Large Seat #1 (elected to fill an unexpired term); Re-elected to S.C. Circuit Court, At-Large Seat #1 in May of 1997; Elected May 23, 1998, S.C. Circuit Court, 15th Judicial Circuit, Seat #1."
Judge Thomas provided the following list of significant orders:

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Todd meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Mr. Todd was born on November 29, 1943. He is 59 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Mr. Todd provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1969.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Todd.
Mr. Todd demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Mr. Todd reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Mr. Todd testified he has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Mr. Todd testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Mr. Todd to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Todd described his continuing legal education during the past five years as follows:
"I am active and current on continuing legal education credits with the Bar and take a broad range of litigation oriented courses consistent with my concentration in commercial litigation."
Mr. Todd reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:

"A fifth appeal is, Town of Winnsboro v. Wiedeman-Singleton, Inc., Turner-Murphy Company, and American Enviroport, Inc., 414 S.E.2d 188. The trial of this case was in the Court of Common Pleas for Fairfield County. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the judgment of the Court of Appeals."
Mr. Todd cited the following criminal appeal matter that was handled by him:

"The City of Columbia, South Carolina v. Martha Deese Moser and Devan Enterprises d/b/a Sauna World, 280 S.C. 135; 311 S.E.2d 920 (1983). Appeal was from the Municipal Court of the City of Columbia. I prosecuted the case, won it, and sustained verdict on appeal."
Regarding prior judicial service, Mr. Todd reported that he was the Municipal Court Judge for the City of Columbia in 1988 and 1989. He was appointed by city council to this court of magistrate's court level jurisdiction.
Mr. Todd reported that, "as a Municipal Court Judge, decisions were rarely, if ever, in written order form. So far as I know, I was not appealed beyond the Circuit Court level during my time of service."

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Williams meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Court of Appeals.
Judge Williams was born on March 13, 1956. He is 46 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Judge Williams provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1982.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Williams.
Judge Williams demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Williams reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Williams testified he has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Williams testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Williams to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Williams described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"(a)   Current Issues In Family Law; sponsored by National Judicial College; 24 hrs, February 2002;
(b)   Organized and participated in School for New Family Court Judges; July 2002;

Participation limited to oral argument."
The following is Judge Williams' account of his prior judicial positions:
"(a)   Assistant Town Judge, Irmo, S.C.; October 1991-June 6, 1995; appointed by Town Council; jurisdiction limited to Magistrate level, usual offense - traffic;
(b)   S.C. Family Court Judge, Richland County, Seat #1; June 1995- present; elected by Legislature; jurisdiction includes, but is not limited to, divorce, adoption, abuse and neglect and juvenile matters as set forth by statute. I have presided over the Richland County Juvenile Drug Court since inception in 1998;
(c)   S.C. Court of Appeals, appointed as an Acting Judge in case of Murphy v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp., et al.;
(d)   I have been appointed as a Circuit Judge to preside over Adult Drug Court."
Judge Williams provided the following list of significant orders:
"(a)   Bates v. Bates, Opinion No. 97-UP-247; Court of Appeals affirms post-divorce modification of alimony;
(b)   Ellis v. Commander, 96-DR-40-1708. Case involved medical treatment for baby when parents object to treatment;
(c)   Jones v. Jones, 96-DR-40-2069. Divorce action with issues involving visitation and equitable distribution;
(d)   Cheung v. Beck, 95-DR-40-1958. Custody case;
(e)   Hooper v. Rockwell, et al., 573 S.E.2d 358, 334 S.C. 281 (1999)."
Judge Williams further provided:
"In 1994 I was a candidate for the Family Court. I was found qualified by the S.C. Bar and Joint Commission for Judicial Screening. I withdrew prior to the election."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Williams' temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10) Miscellaneous:
The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee did not submit a report on any candidate to the Commission during the screening process.

"(a)   S.C. Bar, 1982-present;

(b)   Richland County Bar, 1982-present; Family Law Chairman, 1993; Family Law Committee, 1991-1993;

(c)   S.C. Conference of Family Court Judges, 1995-present; Secretary-Treasurer, 1997-1998; President Elect, 1998-1999; President, 1999-2000;

(d)   S.C. Association of Drug Court Professionals; President, 2000-2001."
Judge Williams provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
"(a)   Received 'Program Achievement Award' at 1998 Governor's Conference on Youth Crime for initiating and developing the Richland County Juvenile Drug Court;
(b)   Columbia Kiwanis Club: President, 1989-1990; Board of Directors, 1987-1991 and 1994-1995; Key Club Keywanettes-Advisor, 1993-1996;
(c)   Summit Club;
(d)   Country Clubs: Wildewood and Woodcreek Farms; member of Greens Committee;
(e)   Tarantella."
Judge Williams further provided:
"I assisted in design and implementation of the Richland County Juvenile Drug Court Program, a comprehensive drug treatment court for offenders with serious drug problems. I am gratified and appreciative of ratings I received from members of the Bar in the anonymous surveys since serving on the bench. I will continue to make efforts to improve in hopes of better serving the people of South Carolina. I believe my 13 years of experience as a practicing lawyer along with seven years as a Family Court Judge give me a broad range of experience to handle the issues presented to the Court of Appeals."
The Commission was impressed with Judge Williams' integrity and his innovative and perceptive approach to proposing alternatives for legislative consideration. The Commission noted that Judge Williams often had been called upon to serve on legislative study committees and that his suggestions were frequently relied upon in making policy determinations.

(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Witherspoon meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Mr. Witherspoon was born on September 4, 1959. He is 43 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Mr. Witherspoon provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1991.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Witherspoon.
Mr. Witherspoon demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Mr. Witherspoon reported that he has made $10.00 in campaign expenditures.
Mr. Witherspoon testified he has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Mr. Witherspoon testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Mr. Witherspoon to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Witherspoon described his continuing legal education during the past five years as follows:
"(a)   Mid Year Bar Meeting, Jan. 1995;
(b)   The Proposed New South Carolina Court Rules, Aug. 1995;
(c)   Richland County Bar Clients Relations Seminar, Nov. 1995;

Law Clerk for the Honorable Randall T. Bell, S.C. Court of Appeals;
August 1992-August 1993:

Law Clerk for the Honorable Matthew J. Perry, U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina;
September 1993-November 1995:

Attorney Berry, Dunbar, Daniel, O'Connor & Jordan. My practice was a general civil plaintiffs oriented practice;
November 1995-August 1996:

Law Clerk for the Honorable Matthew J. Perry, U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina;
September 1996-July 1998:

Attorney Berry, Adams, Quackenbush & Stuart. My practice was a general practice with both plaintiffs and defense cases. Cases included employment matters, contract matters, criminal defense, automobile accidents and other personal injury cases;
July 1998-May 2000:

Associate General Counsel Budget and Control Board. As a member of the General Counsel's office, I provided legal advice and representation to different Board offices and staff. I reviewed contracts and proposed legislation;
May 2000-present:

Assistant United States Attorney. I am involved in the prosecution of federal narcotics and firearms crimes."
Mr. Witherspoon further reported regarding his experience in handling civil and criminal matters:
"Over the last two (2) years, my practice has been exclusively in criminal matters. I have handled cases involving violations of narcotics statutes, violations of federal firearms statutes, armed robbery matters, and violations of federal immigration laws.
Over the course of my career, I have represented both plaintiffs and defendants in civil matters. My civil practice has included personal injury cases and other torts. I have handled automobile accident cases, contract disputes, employment matters and a worker's compensation matter. In addition, I have continued to review reported civil cases from both the state and federal courts. I would continue to study the Rules of Civil Procedure and the reported civil cases to minimize any deficiency in my experience."
Mr. Witherspoon reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
"(a)   Federal:   see explanation below;
(b)   State:     see explanation below;
(c)   Other:     Prior to June 2000, my federal court appearances were minimal. Since I joined the United States Attorney's Office, I have appeared in federal court almost daily. However, before June 2000, I appeared in state court on average once or twice per month. Since June 2000, I have not appeared in state court."
Mr. Witherspoon reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
"(a)   Civil:       50%;
(b)   Criminal:     50%."
Mr. Witherspoon reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
"(a)   Jury:       45%;
(b)   Non-jury:   55%."
Mr. Witherspoon provided that he most often served as sole counsel.

The Commission was impressed by Mr. Witherspoon's expanse of civic involvement as well as his legal experience. The Commission also commented favorably on his demeanor during the public hearing.

The following candidates were found qualified:
Judge Kaye G. Hearn   Chief Judge, Court of Appeals, Seat 5
Judge Donald W. Beatty   Court of Appeals, Seat 6
Judge Mary E. Buchan   Court of Appeals, Seat 6
Judge Alison Renee Lee   Court of Appeals, Seat 6
Judge L. Casey Manning   Court of Appeals, Seat 6
Judge A. Eugene Morehead III   Court of Appeals, Seat 6
Judge Paul E. Short, Jr.   Court of Appeals, Seat 6
Judge H. Bruce Williams   Court of Appeals, Seat 6
Judge G. Thomas Cooper, Jr.   Circuit Court for the

Fifth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3
Judge Larry R. Patterson   Circuit Court for the

Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3
Judge Jackson V. Gregory   Circuit Court for the

Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2

Judicial Circuit, Seat 2
Judge John M. Milling   Circuit Court At-Large Seat 1
Judge R. Markley Dennis, Jr.   Circuit Court At-Large Seat 2
Judge Clifton Newman   Circuit Court At-Large Seat 3
Barry J. Barnette   Circuit Court At-Large Seat 5
Leroy Ellis Davis   Circuit Court At-Large Seat 5
C. Anthony Harris, Jr.   Circuit Court At-Large Seat 5
J. Mark Hayes   Circuit Court At-Large Seat 5
W. Michael Hemlepp   Circuit Court At-Large Seat 5
H. Spencer King   Circuit Court At-Large Seat 5
Judge Thomas E. Shealy   Circuit Court At-Large Seat 5
Judge James E. Lockemy   Circuit Court At-Large Seat 6
Judge J. Cordell Maddox, Jr.   Circuit Court At-Large Seat 7
Judge Kenneth G. Goode   Circuit Court At-Large Seat 8
Judge Ralph K. Anderson III   Circuit Court At-Large Seat 9
Judge Steven D. Dennis   Circuit Court At-Large Seat 9
Jane H. Downey   Circuit Court At-Large Seat 9
Palmer Freeman, Jr.   Circuit Court At-Large Seat 9
J. René Josey   Circuit Court At-Large Seat 9
L. Hunter Limbaugh   Circuit Court At-Large Seat 9
Reginald I. Lloyd   Circuit Court At-Large Seat 9
John P. Meadors   Circuit Court At-Large Seat 9
Walter B. Todd, Jr.   Circuit Court At-Large Seat 9
William K. Witherspoon   Circuit Court At-Large Seat 9
Judge James R. Barber III   Circuit Court At-Large Seat 10
Judge Ray N. Stevens   Administrative Law Judge

Division, Seat 5

Respectfully submitted:

Members of the Judicial Merit Selection Commission
Senator Glenn F. McConnell, Chairman
Representative F.G. Delleney, Jr., Vice Chairman
Richard S. Fisher, Esquire
John P. Freeman, Esquire
Mrs. Amy Johnson McLester
Senator Thomas L. Moore
Senator James H. Ritchie, Jr.
Judge Curtis G. Shaw

On motion of Senator McCONNELL, ordered printed in the Journal.

The following appointment was transmitted by the Honorable Mark Sanford:

Initial Appointment, Department of Commerce, with term to commence upon confirmation, and to expire at the pleasure of the Governor pursuant to Section 13-1-30, S. C. Code of Laws, 1976, as amended

Secretary

Robert A. Faith, 107 Live Oak Drive, Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 VICE Charles S. Way (resigned)

Referred to the Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

The following interim appointments were transmitted by the Honorable James H. Hodges:

Initial Appointment, Anderson County Magistrate, with term to commence April 30, 1999, and to expire April 30, 2003

Thomas H. Williams, 1807 Highway 243, Townville, S.C. 29689

Initial Appointment, Berkeley County Magistrate, with term to commence April 30, 1999, and to expire April 30, 2003

Robert Carol Mitchum, 161 Nobles Lane, Cordsville, S.C. 29464

Initial Appointment, Dillon County Magistrate, with term to commence January 8, 2003, and to expire April 30, 2006

James F. Rodgers, 810 South Main, Lake View, S.C. 29563 VICE James F. Rogers

Initial Appointment, Greenville County Magistrate, with term to commence January 1, 2003, and to expire April 30, 2006

Mark C. Edmonds, 131 Montis Drive, Greenville, S.C. 29617

Initial Appointment, Greenville County Magistrate, with term to commence April 30, 2002, and to expire April 30, 2006

Jack L. Pierce, 374 Dacusville Rd., Marietta, S.C. 29661 VICE Josephine H. Vernon

Reappointment, Jasper County Magistrate, with term to commence April 30, 2002, and to expire April 30, 2006

Marie C. Rawl, P. O. Box 665, Ridgeland, S.C. 29936

Initial Appointment, McCormick County Magistrate, with term to commence April 30, 2002, and to expire April 30, 2006

Nathan E. Andrews, 317 Magnolia Trace, McCormick, S.C. 29835 VICE Donald R. Neal

The following were received and referred to the appropriate committees for consideration:

Document No. 2800
Agency: Department of Health and Environmental Control
SUBJECT: Environmental Protection Fees
Received by Lieutenant Governor January 21, 2003
Referred to Medical Affairs Committee
Legislative Review Expiration May 30, 2003

Document No. 2803
Agency: Department of Health and Environmental Control
SUBJECT: Neonatal Screening for Inborn Metabolic Errors and Hemoglobinopathies
Received by Lieutenant Governor January 21, 2003
Referred to Medical Affairs Committee
Legislative Review Expiration May 30, 2003

Senator RAVENEL introduced Dr. Gerald E. Harmon of Pawleys Island, S.C., Doctor of the Day.

Senator RAVENEL rose for an Expression of Personal Interest.

S. 62 (Word version) -- Senator Elliott: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 34-11-60, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO DRAWING AND UTTERING FRAUDULENT CHECKS, SO AS TO CHANGE FROM TEN TO TWENTY THE NUMBER OF CALENDAR DAYS AN INDIVIDUAL MAY HOLD A CHECK BEFORE CASHING TO ASSERT LIABILITY OF THE DRAWER FOR UTTERING A FRAUDULENT CHECK IF SUFFICIENT FUNDS ARE NOT ON DEPOSIT WITH THE BANK OF THE DRAWER.

Senator ELLIOTT asked unanimous consent to make a motion to recall the Bill from the Committee on Judiciary.

There was no objection.

The Bill was recalled from the Committee on Judiciary.

Senator ELLIOTT asked unanimous consent that the Bill be committed to the Committee on Banking and Insurance.

There was no objection.

The Bill was committed to the Committee on Banking and Insurance.

The following were introduced:

S. 222 (Word version) -- Senator Short: A BILL TO AMEND TITLE 37, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE CONSUMER PROTECTION CODE, BY ADDING CHAPTER 20 SO AS TO ENACT THE "CONSUMER IDENTITY THEFT PROTECTION ACT", TO PROVIDE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN IDENTITY THEFT DATABASE BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, TO PROVIDE AN EXPEDITED COURT PROCEDURE FOR CLEARING THE NAME OF AN IDENTITY THEFT VICTIM, TO PROVIDE STRICT REQUIREMENTS FOR IDENTITY VERIFICATION BY A CREDIT CARD ISSUER, TO PROVIDE FOR THE BLOCKING OF INACCURATE CREDIT REPORT INFORMATION RESULTING FROM IDENTITY THEFT, AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE CREDIT AGENCY'S NOTICE AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS CONFORM TO THOSE OF THE FEDERAL FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT.
l:\s-res\lhs\002thef.mrh.doc

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Banking and Insurance.

S. 223 (Word version) -- Senator Hutto: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 16-23-420, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE CARRYING OR DISPLAYING OF FIREARMS IN PUBLIC BUILDINGS OR AREAS, SO AS TO MAKE IT UNLAWFUL TO POSSESS A FIREARM IN PUBLIC BUILDINGS OR AREAS.
l:\s-jud\bills\hutto\jud0026.cbh.doc

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

S. 224 (Word version) -- Senator Hutto: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 24-19-10, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE CORRECTIONS AND TREATMENT OF YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER INCLUDES A PERSON UNDER SEVENTEEN YEARS OF AGE WHO HAS COMMITTED A NONVIOLENT CRIME THAT IS A CLASS D FELONY.
l:\s-jud\bills\hutto\jud0025.cbh.doc

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

S. 225 (Word version) -- Senator Hutto: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 56-5-2940, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE PENALTIES FOR OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR, DRUGS, OR NARCOTICS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A VIOLATION OF SECTION 56-5-2930 OR SECTION 56-5-2933 CONSTITUTES A PRIOR OFFENSE FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING SUBSEQUENT VIOLATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 56-5-2940.
l:\s-jud\bills\hutto\jud0024.cbh.doc

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

S. 226 (Word version) -- Senator McConnell: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 61-4-630, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A HOLDER OF A RETAIL PERMIT AUTHORIZING SALES OF BEER OR WINE FOR OFF-PREMISES CONSUMPTION MAY DELIVER BEER OR WINE IN A SEALED CONTAINER TO A PERSON AGED TWENTY-ONE OR OLDER UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

S. 227 (Word version) -- Senator Short: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 9, TITLE 58, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND TELEPHONE, TELEGRAPH, AND EXPRESS COMPANIES, BY ADDING ARTICLE 8 SO AS TO ENACT THE "NO TELEPHONE SOLICITATION ACT", TO PROVIDE FOR THE COMPILATION AND MAINTENANCE BY THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF A LIST OF TELEPHONE CUSTOMERS WHO DO NOT WANT TO BE SOLICITED BY TELEPHONE, TO REQUIRE TELEPHONE SOLICITORS TO ACQUIRE THE LIST FOR A FEE AND PROHIBIT THEM FROM SOLICITING THE CUSTOMERS ON THE LIST BY TELEPHONE, AND TO PROVIDE FOR CIVIL PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE PROVISIONS; TO AMEND SECTION 30-4-40, RELATING TO EXEMPTIONS FROM THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, SO AS TO EXEMPT THE "NO TELEPHONE SOLICITATION LIST" DATABASE; AND TO AMEND SECTION 16-17-445, RELATING TO CRIMINAL REGULATION OF UNSOLICITED TELEPHONE CALLS, SO AS TO REQUIRE THE USE OF THE "NO TELEPHONE SOLICITATION LIST" BY A TELEPHONE SOLICITOR.
l:\s-res\lhs\001tele.mrh.doc

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

S. 228 (Word version) -- Senator McConnell: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 6, TITLE 61, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE ALCOHOL BEVERAGE CONTROL ACT, SO AS TO ADD SECTION 61-6-710, ESTABLISHING A SPECIAL FOOD MANUFACTURER'S LICENSE TO BE ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE FOR A PERSON WHO MANUFACTURES FOOD ITEMS SUCH AS SAUCES AND MARINADES IN WHICH THERE IS AN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE INGREDIENT AND WHO DOES SO UNDER AN AGREEMENT WITH THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE MANUFACTURER, AND TO ALLOW THE PURCHASE OF THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE IN CONTAINERS HOLDING QUANTITIES GREATER THAN THE QUANTITIES SOLD TO THE CONSUMER, AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE DEPARTMENT MUST ESTABLISH THE FORM OF APPLICATION AND

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

S. 229 (Word version) -- Senator McConnell: A BILL PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 8, ARTICLE XVII OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1895, RELATING TO THE PROHIBITION ON PUBLIC OFFICERS GAMBLING OR BETTING ON GAMES OF CHANCE, SO AS TO PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION THAT ALLOWS PARTICIPATION IN LOTTERIES CONDUCTED BY THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA.
l:\s-jud\bills\mcconnell\jud0022.gfm.doc

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

S. 230 (Word version) -- Senator Short: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 38 OF TITLE 43, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 43-38-25 TO CREATE THE LONG TERM CARE OMBUDSMAN PROGRAM; AND TO AMEND SECTION 43-38-40 OF THE 1976 CODE, RELATING TO PERSONS IMMUNE FROM CIVIL AND CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER THIS CHAPTER, TO INCLUDE ALL PERSONS PERFORMING DUTIES OUTLINED IN THIS CHAPTER.
l:\s-res\lhs\003long.mrh.doc

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Medical Affairs.

S. 231 (Word version) -- Senator Patterson: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 56-5-5920, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO VEHICLES EXEMPT FROM DISPOSITION AS ABANDONED AND DERELICT VEHICLES, SO AS TO DELETE THE EXEMPTION ALLOWED FROM SUCH DISPOSITIONS IF A VEHICLE IS "PROTECTED FROM THE ELEMENTS".
l:\council\bills\gjk\20003htc03.doc

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Transportation.

S. 232 (Word version) -- Senators J. Verne Smith, Richardson, Leventis, Alexander and Giese: A BILL TO REPEAL JOINT RESOLUTION 370 OF 2002, RELATING TO THE IMPOSITION OF THE NURSING HOME FRANCHISE FEE.
l:\council\bills\nbd\11147htc03.doc

Senator J.VERNE SMITH spoke on the Bill.

Read the first time and, on motion of Senator J.VERNE SMITH, with unanimous consent, S. 232 was ordered placed on the Calendar without reference.

S. 233 (Word version) -- Senator Fair: A BILL TO AMEND SECTIONS 12-21-1020, 12-21-1030, 12-21-1120, AND 12-21-1310, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE BEER AND WINE LICENSE TAX, AND THE ADDITIONAL WINE EXCISE TAX, SO AS TO INCREASE THE BEER TAX FROM SIX-TENTHS TO ONE AND TWO-TENTHS CENTS AN OUNCE AND TO INCREASE THE WINE TAX FROM NINETY CENTS TO ONE DOLLAR EIGHTY CENTS A GALLON OR FRACTION OF A GALLON AND PROVIDE PROPORTIONAL INCREASES FOR OTHER MEASURES OF THE WINE TAX AND TO INCREASE THE ADDITIONAL WINE EXCISE TAX FROM EIGHTEEN TO THIRTY-SIX CENTS A GALLON, AND TO PROPORTIONATELY INCREASE ON OTHER MEASURES OF THE ADDITIONAL WINE EXCISE TAX AND TO AMEND SECTION 12-21-1120, RELATING TO THE DISPOSITION OF BEER AND WINE TAX REVENUE, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT ONE HALF OF THE REVENUE OF THE BEER AND WINE TAX FOR FISCAL YEARS

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Finance.

S. 234 (Word version) -- Senator Drummond: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO COMMEND AND EXTOL GREAT HUMANITARIAN AND PUBLIC SERVANT, HYMAN RUBIN, ON THE OCCASION OF HIS NINETIETH BIRTHDAY, JANUARY 21, 2003, AND TO WISH HIM MANY MORE YEARS OF HEALTH AND HAPPINESS.
l:\council\bills\gjk\20107sl03.doc

Whereas, the members of the General Assembly wish to recognize the distinguished life of Hyman Rubin, a great South Carolinian, who turns ninety years old Tuesday, January 21, 2003; and

Whereas, Hyman Rubin has demonstrated his dedication to the citizens of Richland County, City of Columbia, and the State through his fourteen years of service on the Columbia City Council and mayor pro tempore and his eighteen years in the South Carolina Senate; and

Whereas, while in the Senate, Hyman Rubin served as Chairman of the Richland County Delegation, Chairman of the Senate Medical Affairs Committee, and member of the Joint Study Committee on Aging; and

Whereas, in recognition of his service to South Carolina, in 1991 the General Assembly named the interchange at the Southeastern Beltway and Fort Jackson Boulevard in Richland County the "Hyman Rubin Interchange"; and

Whereas, the members of the General Assembly are pleased to recognize Hyman Rubin for his lifetime of dedication to the State of South Carolina on the occasion of his ninetieth birthday, January 21, 2003. Now, therefore,

Be it resolved by the Senate, the House of Representatives concurring:

That the members of the General Assembly commend and extol great humanitarian and public servant, Hyman Rubin, on the occasion of his ninetieth birthday, January 21, 2003, and wish him many more years of health and happiness.

Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to Hyman Rubin at 2428 Wheat Street, Columbia, South Carolina 29205.

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

S. 235 (Word version) -- Senator Land: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO EXPRESS THE PROFOUND SORROW OF THE MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY UPON THE DEATH OF ELIJAH KINGSTON "E.K." BEST OF LEE COUNTY, WHO PASSED AWAY ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2002, AND TO EXTEND DEEPEST SYMPATHY TO HIS LOVING FAMILY AND MANY FRIENDS.
l:\council\bills\nbd\11143sl03.doc

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

S. 236 (Word version) -- Senators Gregory and Ryberg: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO REQUEST THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO NAME THE BEAVER CREEK BRIDGE ON SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY 97 IN KERSHAW COUNTY IN HONOR OF THE LATE SENIOR STATE TROOPER MICHAEL J. RAO AND TO INSTALL APPROPRIATE MARKERS OR SIGNS ON THE BRIDGE CONTAINING THE WORDS "SENIOR TROOPER MICHAEL J. RAO BRIDGE".
l:\council\bills\swb\5074cm03.doc

On motion of Senator RYBERG, with unanimous consent, the Concurrent Resolution was introduced and ordered placed on the Calendar without reference.

H. 3259 (Word version) -- Rep. Lucas: A BILL TO ENACT THE "SCHOOL DISTRICT OF DARLINGTON COUNTY SCHOOL BOND PROPERTY TAX RELIEF ACT" WHICH AUTHORIZES THE IMPOSITION OF A ONE PERCENT SALES AND USE TAX WITHIN DARLINGTON COUNTY UPON APPROVAL IN A REFERENDUM TO BE USED FOR SPECIFIED SCHOOL PURPOSES.

Read the first time and ordered placed on the Local and Uncontested Calendar.

H. 3349 (Word version) -- Reps. G. M. Smith, Weeks, G. Brown, Coates, Allen, Altman, Anthony, Bailey, Bales, Barfield, Battle, Bingham, Bowers, Branham, Breeland, J. Brown, R. Brown, Cato, Ceips, Chellis, Clark, Clemmons, Clyburn, Cobb-Hunter, Coleman, Cooper, Cotty, Dantzler, Davenport, Delleney, Duncan, Easterday, Edge, Emory, Freeman, Frye, Gilham, Gourdine, Govan, Hagood, Hamilton, Harrell, Harrison, Harvin, Haskins, Hayes, Herbkersman, J. Hines, M. Hines, Hinson,

The Concurrent Resolution was adopted and returned to the House.

H. 3351 (Word version) -- Reps. G. M. Smith, Weeks, G. Brown, Coates, Allen, Altman, Anthony, Bailey, Bales, Barfield, Battle, Bingham, Bowers, Branham, Breeland, J. Brown, R. Brown, Cato, Ceips, Chellis, Clark, Clemmons, Clyburn, Cobb-Hunter, Coleman, Cooper, Cotty, Dantzler, Davenport, Delleney, Duncan, Easterday, Edge, Emory, Freeman, Frye, Gilham, Gourdine, Govan, Hagood, Hamilton, Harrell, Harrison, Harvin, Haskins, Hayes, Herbkersman, J. Hines, M. Hines, Hinson, Hosey, Howard, Huggins, Jennings, Keegan, Kennedy, Kirsh, Koon, Leach, Lee, Limehouse, Littlejohn, Lloyd, Loftis, Lourie, Lucas, Mack, Mahaffey, Martin, McCraw, McGee, McLeod, Merrill, Miller, Moody-Lawrence, J. H. Neal, J. M. Neal, Neilson, Ott, Owens, Parks, Perry, Phillips, Pinson, E. H. Pitts, M. A. Pitts, Quinn, Rhoad, Rice, Richardson, Rivers, Rutherford, Sandifer, Scarborough, Scott, Sheheen, Simrill, Sinclair, Skelton, D. C. Smith, F. N. Smith, J. E. Smith, J. R. Smith, W. D. Smith, Snow, Stewart, Stille, Talley, Taylor, Thompson, Toole, Townsend, Tripp, Trotter, Umphlett, Vaughn, Viers, Walker, Whipper, White, Whitmire, Wilkins, Witherspoon and Young: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO COMMEND AND CONGRATULATE DR. PERRY DAVIS OF PINEWOOD FOR HIS CONTINUED ENTHUSIASM AND DEDICATION TO THE MEDICAL PROFESSION AND TO EXTEND BEST WISHES TO HIM AND HIS FAMILY UPON HIS RETIREMENT AFTER FORTY-THREE YEARS OF SERVICE TO THE CITIZENS OF PINEWOOD AND SUMTER COUNTY.

The Concurrent Resolution was adopted and returned to the House.

H. 3352 (Word version) -- Reps. G. M. Smith, Weeks, G. Brown, Coates, Allen, Altman, Anthony, Bailey, Bales, Barfield, Battle, Bingham, Bowers, Branham, Breeland, J. Brown, R. Brown, Cato, Ceips, Chellis, Clark, Clemmons, Clyburn, Cobb-Hunter, Coleman, Cooper, Cotty, Dantzler, Davenport, Delleney, Duncan, Easterday, Edge, Emory, Freeman, Frye, Gilham, Gourdine, Govan, Hagood, Hamilton, Harrell, Harrison, Harvin, Haskins, Hayes, Herbkersman, J. Hines, M. Hines, Hinson, Hosey, Howard, Huggins, Jennings, Keegan, Kennedy, Kirsh, Koon, Leach, Lee, Limehouse, Littlejohn, Lloyd, Loftis, Lourie, Lucas, Mack, Mahaffey, Martin, McCraw, McGee, McLeod, Merrill, Miller, Moody-Lawrence, J. H. Neal, J. M. Neal, Neilson, Ott, Owens, Parks, Perry, Phillips, Pinson, E. H. Pitts, M. A. Pitts, Quinn, Rhoad, Rice, Richardson, Rivers, Rutherford, Sandifer, Scarborough, Scott, Sheheen, Simrill, Sinclair, Skelton, D. C. Smith, F. N. Smith, J. E. Smith, J. R. Smith, W. D. Smith, Snow, Stewart, Stille, Talley, Taylor, Thompson, Toole, Townsend, Tripp, Trotter, Umphlett, Vaughn, Viers, Walker, Whipper, White, Whitmire, Wilkins, Witherspoon and Young: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO COMMEND AND CONGRATULATE DARIUS JENKINS OF SUMTER FOR THE COURAGE AND HEROISM HE DISPLAYED WHEN HE FOUND AN ABANDONED BABY GIRL IN AN OVERGROWN VACANT LOT IN SUMTER ON JULY 24, 2002.

The Concurrent Resolution was adopted and returned to the House.

H. 3356 (Word version) -- Reps. Wilkins, W. D. Smith, Harrison, Harrell, J. Brown, Cato, Witherspoon, Townsend and Chellis: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION INVITING HIS EXCELLENCY, MARSHALL CLEMENT (MARK) SANFORD, JR., GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, TO ADDRESS THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN JOINT SESSION AT 7:00 P.M. ON WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 22, 2003, IN THE CHAMBER OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

On motion of Senator MARTIN, with unanimous consent, the Concurrent Resolution was adopted and returned to the House.

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

S. 188 (Word version) -- Senator Martin: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE THAT THE SCHOOL DAY MISSED ON DECEMBER 3, 2002, BY THE STUDENTS OF A. R. LEWIS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IN PICKENS COUNTY WHEN THE SCHOOL WAS CLOSED DUE TO A BREAK IN A WATER MAIN IS EXEMPTED FROM THE MAKE-UP REQUIREMENT OF THE DEFINED MINIMUM PLAN THAT FULL SCHOOL DAYS MISSED DUE TO EXTREME WEATHER OR OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES BE MADE UP.

The following Bill, having been read the second time, was ordered placed on the third reading Calendar:

H. 3282 (Word version) -- Reps. Taylor, Duncan and M.A. Pitts: A BILL TO AMEND ACT 779 OF 1988, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO LAURENS COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS 55 AND 56, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE ELECTIONS FOR SCHOOL BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE DISTRICTS MUST BE HELD ON THE SECOND TUESDAY OF MARCH INSTEAD OF THE FIRST TUESDAY OF MARCH, IN APPROPRIATE YEARS.

S. 189 (Word version) -- Senators Courson, Knotts, Giese and Alexander: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO INVITE THE NATIONAL COMMANDER OF THE AMERICAN LEGION, THE HONORABLE RONALD F. CONLEY, TO ADDRESS THE SOUTH CAROLINA GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN JOINT SESSION AT 12:30 P.M. ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2003.

On motion of Senator McCONNELL, with unanimous consent, the Concurrent Resolution was carried over.

THE CALL OF THE UNCONTESTED CALENDAR HAVING BEEN COMPLETED, THE SENATE PROCEEDED TO THE MOTION PERIOD.

At 12:14 P.M., on motion of Senator MARTIN, the Senate receded from business subject to the Call of the Chair.

At 12:20 P.M., the Senate resumed.

Senator McCONNELL moved that it shall be the Sense of the Senate that cell phones and pagers be prohibited inside the Senate Chamber unless the cell phone or pager is set to ring inaudibly. It shall also be the Sense of the Senate that phone conversations be taken out of the Chamber and that the Sergeant-at-Arms enforce the provisions of this motion as described herein.

The Sense of the Senate was adopted.

The PRESIDENT appointed Senators J. VERNE SMITH, THOMAS, O'DELL, JACKSON and KUHN to escort the Honorable Marshall (Mark) C. Sanford, Governor of the State of South Carolina, and members of his party to the House of Representatives for the Joint Assembly.

Having received a favorable report from the Anderson County Delegation, the following appointment was confirmed in open session:

Initial Appointment, Anderson County Magistrate, with term to commence April 30, 1999, and to expire April 30, 2003

Thomas H. Williams, 1807 Highway 243, Townville, S.C. 29689

Having received a favorable report from the Berkeley County Delegation, the following appointment was confirmed in open session:

Initial Appointment, Berkeley County Magistrate, with term to commence April 30, 1999, and to expire April 30, 2003

Robert Carol Mitchum, 161 Nobles Lane, Cordsville, S.C. 29464

Having received a favorable report from the Dillon County Delegation, the following appointment was confirmed in open session:

Initial Appointment, Dillon County Magistrate, with term to commence January 8, 2003, and to expire April 30, 2006

James F. Rodgers, 810 South Main, Lake View, S.C. 29563 VICE James F. Rogers

Having received a favorable report from the Greenville County Delegation, the following appointments were confirmed in open session:

Initial Appointment, Greenville County Magistrate, with term to commence January 1, 2003, and to expire April 30, 2006

Mark C. Edmonds, 131 Montis Drive, Greenville, S.C. 29617

Initial Appointment, Greenville County Magistrate, with term to commence April 30, 2002, and to expire April 30, 2006

Jack L. Pierce, 374 Dacusville Rd., Marietta, S.C. 29661 VICE Josephine H. Vernon

Having received a favorable report from the Jasper County Delegation, the following appointment was confirmed in open session:

Reappointment, Jasper County Magistrate, with term to commence April 30, 2002, and to expire April 30, 2006

Marie C. Rawl, P. O. Box 665, Ridgeland, S.C. 29936

Having received a favorable report from the McCormick County Delegation, the following appointment was confirmed in open session:

Initial Appointment, McCormick County Magistrate, with term to commence April 30, 2002, and to expire April 30, 2006

Nathan E. Andrews, 317 Magnolia Trace, McCormick, S.C. 29835 VICE Donald R. Neal

At 12:40 P.M., on motion of Senator McCONNELL, the Senate adjourned to meet tomorrow at 2:00 P.M.

This web page was last updated on Wednesday, June 24, 2009 at 3:43 P.M.