PARENT'S RIGHTS NOW!

It's no secret that the Legislature passes numerous pieces of legislation that have major constitutional issues, even ignoring opinions from the attorney general's office. For the most part, the time and expense involved allows these laws to stand unchallenged, with the efforts of Greenville's citizen-watchdog, Edward Sloan, a major exception. This time, more than 10 years after the fact, it took a highly controversial decision to rouse members of the legal community to look critically at the composition of the commission (emphasis added).

The South Carolina chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers issued a strongly-worded statement Saturday in support of Family Court Judge F.P. "Charlie" Segars-Andrews.

The judge, who lives in Mount Pleasant and has served on the bench more than 16 years, may be ineligible for reappointment next year because the state Judicial Merit Selection Commission has found her unqualified because of an ethics issue.

"This is a bizarre event in our history and sets an extremely bad precedent," the academy's statement reads. "There needs to be absolute transparency, not meetings behind closed doors on this critical issue," an apparent reference to the commission's decision Wednesday to adjourn to closed session four times.

While the commission's decision won't be final until it issues a written report, members have voted 7-3 to find Segars-Andrews unqualified because she ruled in a Clarendon County divorce case even though one attorney involved shared in a lucrative case with her husband's law firm, among other things.

The matrimonial lawyers group is asking the commission to delay any vote on her until one of its members, University of South Carolina professor emeritus John Freeman issues his report. Freeman is the sole commissioner to have found Segars-Andrews qualified all along.

"We believe the commission members and the public should be able to read Professor Freeman's unbiased, non-political, expert opinion before a vote is taken," the academy said.

It also noted that the S.C. Court of Appeals and the Judicial Conduct Commission found no wrongdoing in Segars-Andrews' handling of the divorce case, so the academy noted the commission, "for the first time in its history, is essentially impeaching a judge who has been found innocent of any wrongdoing by the existing legal system."

Commission chairman and Senate President Pro Tem Glenn McConnell has said the commission's final report on the judge could be done by Christmas.

The South Carolina General Assembly is about to hold judicial elections for a number of seats on our state courts. South Carolina has a system of legislative, merit-based elections in which legislators choose judges from a pool of up to three candidates deemed the best qualified for judicial office by the Judicial Merit Selection Commission.

The judiciary plays a vital role in the preservation of our freedoms and the protection of our rights as citizens. Our nation and state were founded on the principle of three separate but equal branches of government performing distinctly different functions.

The South Carolina Bar places the utmost importance upon a fair and impartial judicial election process, one in which partisan politics does not play a role. South Carolina's current system avoids the harsh politics found in other states, and the system ultimately allows the citizens of our state to appear before judges who are without bias. Other judicial selection methods, such as public elections, risk the erosion of public trust in the justice system due to campaign fundraising, inferences from pledging on issues during the campaign and negative campaigning among candidates.

In particular, these selection methods are susceptible to special interest groups who improperly inject themselves and their agendas into the election of those who need to serve on the courtroom bench impartially.

The Bar is disturbed by the creeping emergence of attempted external pressures and influences on South Carolina's judicial selection process. In order to dispense justice under the rule of law, the judicial branch must be independent of outside influences of any kind. It is crucial to the integrity of our state's justice system that judicial elections remain based on the candidates' qualifications alone and not subject to the coercion of special interests.

The introduction of political ideology into our state's justice system threatens the historical separation of powers and rule of law. Every judicial selection method contains an element of politics. However, South Carolina's system has historically been the least affected by partisan politics.

Let us preserve our nonpartisan and impartial courts. Anything less works against the best interests of South Carolinians.

The Bar is confident that members of the public on their day in court want to appear before unbiased judges elected because of their qualifications to serve that office, not because of their allegiances to special interest groups or campaign contributors.

South Carolinians have a fundamental right to have a fair and impartial judge hear and decide their disputes. Surely, this is a principle on which we can all agree.

Lanneau Wm. Lambert Jr.
President South Carolina Bar