House Journal for Jan. 11, 2000 - South Carolina Legislature Online

Indicates Matter Stricken
Indicates New Matter
The House assembled at 12:00 noon.
Deliberations were opened with prayer by the Chaplain of the House of
Representatives, the Rev. Dr. Alton C. Clark, as follows:
At the very beginning of this Legislative Session and of the millennium,
we stand tip-toed wondering what the future holds. That we cannot know,
but we are sure that there will be disappointments and victories, of
discouragements and joys. But we are more confident of God's presence.
When we are right, enable us to stand firm; when we are knocked down by
opposition, enable us to get up, not get down. Make us to remain steadfast
to Your truths as in Your wisdom, You show us what is right. Lead and
direct us this day and always. Amen. Pursuant to Rule 6.3, the House of Representatives was led in the Pledge
of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America by the SPEAKER.
MOTION ADOPTED
Rep. COTTY moved that when the House adjourns, it adjourn in memory of
Austin M. Sheheen, Sr. of Camden, father of Representative Robert J.
Sheheen, which was agreed to.
SILENT PRAYER
The House stood in silent prayer in memory of Austin M. Sheheen, Sr. REPORT RECEIVED
The following was received.
JUDICIAL MERIT SELECTION COMMISSION TO: The Clerk of the Senate
The Clerk of the House
FROM: F. Greg Delleney, Jr., Chairman
Judicial Merit Selection Commission
DATE: January 11, 2000 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. Respectfully submitted,
Representative F.G. Delleney, Jr., Chairman
Senator Glenn F. McConnell, Vice-Chairman
Representative Ralph W. Canty
Richard S. Fisher, Esquire
Dr. Harry M. Lightsey, Jr.
Mrs. Amy Johnson McLester
Senator Thomas L. Moore
Senator Edward E. Saleeby
Judge Curtis G. Shaw
Representative William Douglas Smith January 11, 2000 Dear Members of the General Assembly:
Enclosed is the Judicial Merit Selection Commission's report of candidate
qualifications. This report is designed to assist you in determining how to
cast your vote. The Commission is charged by law with ascertaining whether
judicial candidates are qualified for service on the bench. In accordance
with this mandate, the Commission has thoroughly investigated all judicial
candidates for their suitability for judicial service. The Commission found
all candidates discussed in this report to be qualified.
The Commission's finding that a candidate is qualified means that the
candidate satisfies both the constitutional criteria for judicial office
and the Commission's evaluative criteria. The attached report details each
candidate's qualifications as they relate to the Commission's evaluative
criteria.
Judicial candidates are prohibited from asking for your commitment until
10:00 a.m. on Thursday, January 13, 2000. If you find a candidate violating
the pledging prohibitions or if you have questions about this report,
please contact the Commission office at 212-6092.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely,
F. Greg Delleney, Jr. REPORT RECEIVED
Judicial Merit Selection Commission
Report of Candidate Qualifications Date Draft Report Issued: 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, January 11, 2000
Date and Time
Final Report Issued: 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, January 13, 2000
Judicial candidates are not free to seek or accept commitments until 10:00
a.m. Thursday, January 13, 2000 Introduction
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 is operating under the law which went into effect July 1, 1997,
and which has 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. Furthermore, the
Commission is required to submit no more than three names for any
particular judicial race; therefore, for one race the Commission was
required to pare the number of candidates presented for consideration by
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 previously. 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 the
members of the General Assembly more information about candidates and their
thought processes on issues relevant to their candidacies. The Commission
has also engaged in a more probing inquiry into the depth of a candidate's
experience in areas of practice that are germane to the office he or she is
seeking. The Commission feels that candidates should have familiarity with
the subject matter of the courts for which they offer, and feels that
candidates' responses should indicate their familiarity with most major
areas of the law with which they will be confronted.
In assessing each candidate's performance on the practice and procedure
questions, the Commission had the option of placing candidates in either
the "failed to meet expectations" or "met expectations" category. The
Commission feels that these categories accurately reflect the candidate's
performance on the practice and procedure questions.
As in previous years, the Commission considered judicial temperament in
its evaluation of each candidate. An estimated 510,000 cases are tried
each year in South Carolina, with over 276,000 jurors summoned to serve in
State Court. The judiciary interacts with a great number of our state's
citizens and it is important that each candidate demonstrates the ability
and willingness to properly address the concerns of the large volume of
people who come into contact with the Court each year.
The Commission has also used the Citizens Committees on Judicial
Qualifications as an adjunct of the Commission. The Commission was
concerned that since the decisions of our judiciary play such an important
role in people's personal and professional lives, 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
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. Each committee's general findings have
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;
(4) grievance investigation;
(5) study of application materials;
(6) verification of ethics compliance;
(7) search of newspaper articles;
(8) conflict of interest investigation;
(9) court schedule study;
(10) study of appellate record;
(11) court observation; and
(12) investigation of complaints.
While the law provides that the 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. Howe