Copyright Charleston Post and Courier
COLUMBIA — It took years for South Carolina legislators to broker a compromise to reform how the General Assembly picks state judges. Now, many of the same lawmakers who helped strike the deal last session are looking to undo the changes before they’ve had a single hearing. For years, legislative leadership had proven reluctant to give up its power on the Judicial Merit Selection Commission — the panel of lawmakers who get to vet judgeship candidates before sending them to a deciding floor vote by all 170 members of the Legislature. In a major shift last year, lawmakers agreed to share some of the influence on the panel by giving the governor’s office four appointments on the 12-member screening committee while keeping six spots for legislators and two for private citizens. But just months after the changes went into effect, some legislators — House Speaker Murrell Smith reportedly among them — have signed onto a proposal to eliminate legislators’ role on the panel entirely. One reason is that the political environment has shifted. Candidates for statewide office, including for governor and attorney general, have made eliminating the Legislature’s influence on the process into a campaign litmus test. Outside groups have taken interest, too. Last month, the group DOGE SC — a play on billionaire Elon Musk’s federal Department of Government Efficiency — rolled out its own policy proposal to place the authority to nominate panelists completely in the governor’s hands. The group is led by Isle of Palms millionaire and activist businessman Rom Reddy, who was recently ordered to tear down an illegal seawall on his property. Calling the proposed bill the “Removing DEI and Restoring Separation of Powers in the JMSC Act,” Reddy this month rolled out a list of would-be sponsors, which included a mix of anti-establishment Senate Republicans and members of the hardline House Freedom Caucus to leadership figures like Smith and House Majority Whip Brandon Newton, R-York. “You can mark my words. It will get done,” Reddy said in an Oct. 31 interview with The Post and Courier. “The only reason it has not gotten done so far is a pathetic lack of leadership.” He added, “I'm actually very happy with Speaker Smith. I made the case to him, I told him why it's constitutional, and he absolutely was on board. I think we have his strong support all through this thing.” Where this came from Private citizens can’t file legislation. But Reddy’s judge-picking proposal has been circulated in a 15-page draft authored by DOGE SC’s policy director, Matthew Nolan. Some of the ideas aren’t new. An end to so-called diversity, equity and inclusion criteria in the selection process embraced by DOGE SC has been kicking around the General Assembly since at least 2012, while proposals to cede candidate vetting powers to the governor’s office have unsuccessfully been proposed in various forms by multiple lawmakers dating back years. Murrell’s Inlet Republican Sen. Stephen Goldfinch — a candidate for attorney general who was passed over by Reddy’s organization for an endorsement in the race in favor of 1st Circuit Solicitor David Pascoe — claimed many of the concepts championed in the proposal actually originated with fellow bill sponsor Sen. Wes Climer, a Rock Hill Republican and current candidate for Congress. “It did not come from DOGE,” Goldfinch said in an interview. Smith, who is the banner name on Reddy’s proposed legislation, declined to comment on the DOGE SC announcement via his spokesperson, who said it is premature to draw conclusions about Smith’s position on the measure or whether he would support any of the concepts in the DOGE release. “Once the Caucus prefiles legislation (for the upcoming session), that will reflect what the Speaker supports,” Smith’s spokesperson wrote in a text message. As for what changed, lawmakers offered various rationales for their interest. Sen. Michael Johnson, R-York, said in a statement his support came out of concern for a stronger separation of powers between the executive and legislative branch, which would still have the ability to vote nominees up or down on the floor. Rep. Gil Gatch, a Summerville Republican and attorney who previously opposed eliminating the legislature’s role on the panel, said his position on the issue had shifted in recent years, calling reform an effort to reassure public trust. Critics are concerned, though, that allowing the governor too much power could lead to less accountability and, in fact, make the position more vulnerable to political influence. “I would rather have public elections than do this because the governor is the most insulated person in politics,” said House Minority Leader Todd Rutherford, a Columbia Democrat and attorney who served on the JMSC prior to the 2024 reforms. South Carolina and Virginia are the only two states where legislatures elect judges to their highest courts. Other pressures Some wonder whether outside political pressure is pushing lawmakers into action faster in the Musk model. Entering the 2026 GOP primary cycle, Reddy had already committed to injecting $2.5 million of his personal fortune into his DOGE SC political action committee in an attempt to shape the conversation. Disclosures filed with the IRS earlier this year show Reddy has already infused his organization with nearly half-a-million dollars, and enlisted a board of directors that includes top GOP fundraiser Susan Goede, Trump White House alum and former Fox News executive Bill Shine, and former S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control director Catherine Templeton, who like Reddy has railed against the “weaponization” of the state’s judicial system in op-eds and in the media. Wes Donehue, a longtime Republican consultant working with Reddy, said he believed their efforts were positioned to take advantage of what he described as the most anti-establishment political environment he’d ever seen, saying “I think a lot of legislators might lose their jobs next year.” DOGE SC could play a role in that, Reddy said, to the point where they will go into the districts of their opposition. “We would like to go to the voters to say, ‘If you can’t trust your elected official to uphold the oath they took, what can you trust them on?’ ” Reddy said. “And let's see what happens.” Will it move? As for what happens next, Ashley Creech, president of the influential South Carolina Association for Justice, said they were awaiting a full copy of the proposal before making a statement, writing they welcome “any good-faith discussion aimed at strengthening confidence in our courts and ensuring that justice remains impartial and accessible to all.” Michael Burris, CEO of the right-leaning South Carolina Policy Council and a key Statehouse supporter of judicial reform, said he was planning to meet with Reddy and lawmakers to discuss the plan, saying while they believed momentum was building for additional reforms, there would likely be pushback. What ultimately emerges from the process, if anything, is anyone’s guess. “That will ultimately be a function of how much pressure voters put on legislators,” Climer said.
