Women in Politics: How SC Courts Lose Public Trust and Integrity

The Struggle for Judicial Diversity in South Carolina

In 2009, the national League of Women Voters launched an initiative to promote the importance of fair and impartial courts across the country. Their focus was on achieving diversity at all levels of the state judiciary to enhance the legitimacy of the justice system in the eyes of an increasingly diverse public. This mission became particularly relevant when a brochure highlighted the lack of diversity in South Carolina’s judiciary.

South Carolina's judicial system is unique in that judges are elected by state lawmakers, rather than through elections or appointments. The brochure revealed alarming statistics: only 22% of South Carolina’s judges were women, despite women making up nearly 35% of the state’s lawyers and 52% of its population. Additionally, only eight (or 7%) of the 118 judgeships were held by minorities. These numbers have not significantly improved over the years, even with increased national attention on the issue.

A Public Trust Issue

In 2016, the Brennan Center published a guide titled "Building a Diverse Bench: A Guide for Judicial Nominating Commissioners." This resource outlined four key reasons why courtroom diversity is crucial. It emphasized that bringing diverse perspectives into the judiciary fosters decision-making that reflects the lived experiences of the entire population, leading to more informed and richer jurisprudence. A diverse bench also promotes public confidence that the judicial system is fair and objective. When the judiciary includes all voices and perspectives, members of the public are more likely to trust that their voices will be heard. Lastly, diversity on the bench serves as a role model for all groups, showing that individuals from diverse backgrounds can achieve judicial positions.

Despite these insights, South Carolina did not fully embrace the recommendations. However, in 2023, South Carolina Supreme Court Justice John Kittredge spoke out about the need for judicial diversity. At the time, South Carolina was the only state without any women on its Supreme Court. Kittredge, now the state high court’s chief justice, emphasized the importance of reflecting the people of South Carolina in the judiciary. He stated, “If it does not reflect the people of South Carolina, we are going to lose the respect and integrity of the public that we serve.”

Renewed Attention to Representation

In 2024, the South Carolina Black Legislative Caucus brought renewed attention to the issue of representation in the judicial system. Rep. Annie McDaniel, D-Fairfield, highlighted that diversity is not just symbolic but directly influences the trust communities place in the judicial system. She argued that diversity enriches the judicial system with various perspectives that enhance fairness and impartiality.

The process of selecting judges in South Carolina involves the Judicial Merit Selection Commission, which evaluates and interviews candidates. However, much of the process occurs behind closed doors, and many records are confidential. Despite this, the General Assembly has sometimes ignored the panel's recommendations. One notable example was an election where a qualified, unopposed female candidate lost her race. The vote to approve her wasn’t even close, failing in the General Assembly 54-93. This was the second time in 10 months that the General Assembly rejected a candidate who had support from the selection commission.

An Imbalance of Power

The problem extends beyond the selection process itself. Only 12.9% of the lawmakers electing judges are women, including just two female state senators and 20 female representatives. This imbalance raises concerns about the fairness of the process. Additionally, more than 1 in 4 lawmakers are lawyers who could appear before them in court, creating a conflict of interest. Gov. Henry McMaster addressed this issue in a July 2024 letter to Senate President Thomas Alexander, explaining his support for minor changes to the selection process. He emphasized that entrusting a single branch of government with control over the screening and selection of judges undermines the separation of powers and creates a perception that influence and connections matter more than merit.

McMaster pointed out that requirements such as campaigning in the lobby or at the bottom of an escalator discourage capable but apolitical attorneys from seeking judicial office. He concluded that continued resistance to meaningful change would only worsen the current perception and imbalance of power.

South Carolina’s judicial selection process clearly needs an overhaul. The lack of diversity and the inherent flaws in the system threaten the public’s trust in the judiciary. Addressing these issues is essential to ensuring a fair and functional justice system for all South Carolinians.