South Carolina Judicial Merit Selection Commission

Judicial nominating commissions
Individual nominating committees
Select a committee in the dropdown below and click "Submit" to view information about that committee. Alaska Judicial CouncilArizona Commission on Appellate Court AppointmentsArizona Commission on Judicial Performance ReviewArizona Judicial Nominating CommissionsCalifornia Commission on Judicial AppointmentsColorado Supreme Court Nominating CommissionConnecticut Judicial Selection CommissionDelaware Judicial Nominating CommissionDistrict of Columbia Judicial Nomination CommissionFlorida Supreme Court Judicial Nominating CommissionGeorgia Judicial Nominating CommissionHawaii Judicial Selection CommissionIndiana Judicial Nominating CommissionIowa Judicial Nominating CommissionKansas Supreme Court Nominating CommissionKentucky Judicial Nominating CommissionMaryland Appellate Courts Judicial Nominating CommissionMinnesota Commission on Judicial SelectionMissouri Appellate Judicial CommissionMontana Judicial Nominating CommissionNebraska Judicial Nominating CommissionsNevada Commission on Judicial SelectionNew Hampshire Judicial Selection CommissionState of New York Commission on Judicial NominationNorth Dakota Judicial Nominating CommitteeOklahoma Judicial Nominating CommissionRhode Island Judicial Nominating CommissionSouth Carolina Judicial Merit Selection CommissionSouth Dakota Judicial Qualifications CommissionTennessee Governor's Council for Judicial AppointmentsUtah Judicial Performance Evaluation CommissionUtah Appellate Judicial Nominating CommissionVermont Judicial Nominating BoardWest Virginia Judicial Vacancy Advisory CommissionWyoming Judicial Nominating CommissionSubmit
Methods of judicial selection
Partisan elections
Nonpartisan elections
Michigan method
Retention elections
Assisted appointment
Bar-controlled commission
Governor-controlled commission
Hybrid commission
Legislative elections
Gubernatorial appointment

The South Carolina Judicial Merit Selection Commission, also known as the JMSC, is an independent state commission in South Carolina that plays a role in the state's judicial selection process. The commission was established in 1997 by a legislatively referred constitutional amendment. When the Commission was first established, it was consisted of 10 members: five selected by the speaker of the House, three selected by the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, and two selected by the Senate president. Following the passage of S1046 in 2024, the Commission is made of twelve members: two selected by the President of the South Carolina State Senate, two chosen by the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, four members selected by the Speaker of the House, and four appointed by the governor. This selection method is used for all of the appellate courts and some of the trial courts in the state.

Members

Last updated: February 2026.

The JMSC has twelve members. The President of the Senate selects two members: one Senator, and one from the general public. The Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee selects two members from the Senate. The Speaker of the House selects four members: three fellow House members, and one member of the public. Lastly, the Governor appoints four members who are in good standing with the South Carolina Bar.

According to state law, "In making appointments to the commission, race, gender, national origin, and other demographic factors should be considered to ensure nondiscrimination to the greatest extent possible as to all segments of the population of the State." Commission members from the general public serve four-year terms; however, they may be removed at any time by the person who appointed them to the commission. Commission members from the General Assembly serve the duration of their term in office.

The following individuals were members of the JMSC as of July 1, 2025:

Members of the South Carolina Judicial Merit Selection Commission, July 2025
Name	Year appointed	Appointed by
Chairman - Sen. Luke Rankin (R)	2017	Senate
Vice-Chairman - Rep. Micah Caskey (R)	2022	House
Sen. Overture Walker (D)	2025	Senate
Sen. George Campsen (R)	2025	Senate
John T. Lay	2025	Senate
Rep. Leonidas Stavrinakis (D)	2025	House
Rep. Jay Jordan (R)	2022	House
Christian Stegmaier	2025	House
Mary Agnes Hood Craig	2025	Governor
Peter D. Protopapas	2025	Governor
Lanneau Wm. Lambert Jr.	2025	Governor
Joseph M. Strickland	2025	Governor

Process

On its website, the JMSC lays out the following steps for filling a judicial vacancy:

“

The Judicial Merit Selection Commission: Publishes upcoming judicial vacancies, including judgeships where the judicial term is expiring and the incumbent judge is being screened for reelection. This list is sent to the media in South Carolina. Publishes the list of candidates who have completed applications to run for judicial vacancies thirty days after the vacancy is announced. This list is sent to the South Carolina media. Published at the same time is the cutoff date for members of the public to file a complaint in the form of an affidavit in opposition to a judicial candidate. Requests all members of the South Carolina Bar to return questionnaires (a BallotBox survey) on the performance and qualifications of sitting judges and attorneys running for judicial vacancies. Arranges for members of the local Citizens Committee to interview the judicial candidates residing in the same geographic area. There are five volunteer Citizens Committees on Judicial Qualifications across the State. These Citizens Committees investigate candidates within the community. Arranges for judicial candidates to attend interviews with counsel to the Commission. Investigates and summarizes the qualifications of judicial candidates as determined from: written responses by the judicial candidate on a personal data questionnaire (PDQ); the BallotBox questionnaire results; a SLED check; a financial and credit check; a statement of economic interest check; grievance/reprimand check from the Commission on Judicial Conduct and the Commission on Lawyer Conduct; reports of the local Citizens Committees on Judicial Qualifications; report of the SC Bar Judicial Qualifications Committee; results of ethics questionnaire and campaign expenditures; result of newspaper article search; copies of previous screenings; letters of reference; results of case study search for patterns of error and research on appeals (for sitting judges); personal interviews by counsel to the Judicial Merit Selection Commission; an investigation of any affidavits received from the public. Holds the public hearing before the Commission to record testimony of candidates on any matters revealed in the investigation. Issues a Draft Report on Judicial Qualifications to the General Assembly after the public hearing. Forty-eight hours after the Draft Report is issued, the Report on Judicial Qualifications becomes final. At the time the report becomes final candidates are free to seek the support of members of the General Assembly and legislators are free to give pledges of support to candidates. The Chairman of the Judicial Merit Selection Commission drafts a Concurrent Resolution to schedule a Joint Assembly. When both the Senate and the House of Representatives have concurred on the date, a Joint Assembly is held in the House Chamber to elect members of the judiciary

”

Evaluation criteria

The following evaluation criteria are outlined in the commission's judicial qualifications checklist:

“

The Judicial Merit Selection Commission’s investigation of judicial candidates should include, but is not limited to, the following qualifications for judicial candidates: (1) constitutional qualifications; (2) ethical fitness; (3) professional and academic ability; (4) character; (5) reputation; (6) physical health; (7) mental stability; (8) experience; and, (9) judicial temperament. [...] 1. Constitutional Qualifications Candidate must be a citizen of the United States and of South Carolina. Candidate must be at least 32 years old. Candidate must be a licensed attorney who has been licensed for at least 8 years. Candidate must be a resident of South Carolina and have been a resident for at least 5 years at time of election. 2. Ethical Fitness Candidates must have the ability to perform adjudicative duties impartially and deal with litigants, lawyers, witnesses, and others objectively and without bias. At a minimum, a sitting judge will be expected to have complied with the Code of Judicial Conduct’s requirements to avoid impropriety and to exhibit impartiality. Sitting judges must have complied with the Code of Judicial Conduct’s prohibition against the acceptance of gifts. Candidates must comply with the rules against ex parte communications. A candidate’s past actions and deeds should demonstrate consistent adherence to high ethical principles, and his or her reputation should be above reproach. No candidate for judicial office may seek directly or indirectly the pledge of a member of the General Assembly’s vote or contact a member of the General Assembly regarding judicial screening. A candidate must report spending in excess of $100 by him or on his behalf in seeking the office. 3. Professional and Academic Ability All candidates are expected to be well-versed in fundamental legal principles and in procedural and evidentiary rules. The Commission will review each candidate’s academic record. Each candidate must be dedicated to continuing legal education and have, at a minimum, complied with the South Carolina rules for continuing legal education. 4. Character The Commission must look to the character of candidates regarding their ethical standards and work habits through an investigation of any complaints, grievances, or criminal allegations made against a candidate. The Commission will look at financial responsibility as way of demonstrating self-discipline and the ability to withstand pressures which might compromise independence and impartiality. 5. Reputation Practicing lawyers and those who have constant exposure to the state’s court system must have confidence in the state’s judiciary. The commission must therefore solicit information from members of the Bar, Clerks of Court, and other pertinent individuals on each candidate through responses to questionnaires and interviews of members of the Bar. 6. Physical and Mental Health Candidates must be both mentally and physically capable of performing the duties of the office sought with or without reasonable accommodation for any mental or physical impairment that substantially limits major life activity. The commission must seek to determine that each candidate can perform the functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodation. 7. Experience The extent and variety of a candidate’s experience as an attorney or as a judge or both should be considered in light of the nature of the judicial vacancy to be filed. The most important consideration should be the depth and breadth of the professional experience and the competence with which it has been performed. 8. Judicial Temperament The commission must place strong emphasis on each candidate’s ability to consistently exhibit judicial temperament. Conduct which is arrogant, impatient, or arbitrary is an impediment to the administration of justice, and this should be considered by the commission. 9. Other Qualifications and Requirements No member of the General Assembly may apply for a judicial office while he/she is serving in the General Assembly nor shall that person apply for a judicial office for a period of one year after he/she either (1) ceases to be a member of the General Assembly; or (2) fails to file for election to the General Assembly in accordance with § 7-11-15. No candidate may seek directly or indirectly the pledge of a member of the General Assembly’s vote or, directly or indirectly, contact a member of the General Assembly regarding screening for the judicial office until the qualifications of all candidates for that office have been determined by the commission. No person may concurrently seek more than one judicial vacancy.

”

Duties

As of April 2025, the South Carolina Judicial Merit Selection Commission website did not list specific duties for members of the commission.

About judicial selection

Each state has a unique set of guidelines governing how they select judges at the state and local level. These methods of selection are:

Election

• Partisan election: Judges are elected by the people, and candidates are listed on the ballot alongside a label designating political party affiliation.
• Nonpartisan election: Judges are elected by the people, and candidates are listed on the ballot without a label designating party affiliation.
• Michigan method: State supreme court justices are selected through nonpartisan elections preceded by either partisan primaries or conventions.
• Retention election: A periodic process whereby voters are asked whether an incumbent judge should remain in office for another term. Judges are not selected for initial terms in office using this election method.

Assisted appointment

• Assisted appointment, also known as merit selection or the Missouri Plan: A nominating commission reviews the qualifications of judicial candidates and submits a list of names to the governor, who appoints a judge from the list. At the state supreme court level, this method is further divided into the following three types:
  • Bar-controlled commission: Members of the state Bar Association are responsible for electing a majority of the judicial nominating commission that sends the governor a list of nominees that they must choose from.
  • Governor-controlled commission: The governor is responsible for appointing a majority of the judicial nominating commission that sends the governor a list of nominees they must choose from.
  • Hybrid commission: The judicial nominating commission has no majority of members chosen by either the governor or the state bar association. These commissions determine membership in a variety of ways, but no institution or organization has a clear majority control.

Direct appointment

• Court appointment: Judges are selected by judges in the state judiciary.
• Gubernatorial appointment: Judges are appointed by the governor. In some cases, approval from the legislative body is required.
• Legislative election: Judges are selected by the state legislature.
• Municipal government selection: Judges are selected by the governing body of their municipality.

Click a state on the map below to explore judicial selection processes in that state.

Choose your state...AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWashington, D.C.West VirginiaWisconsinWyoming

http://ballotpedia.org/Judicial_selection_in_STATE

See also

State courts	Appointment methods	Election methods
State supreme courts Intermediate appellate courts Trial courts	Assisted appointment Court appointment Gubernatorial appointment Legislative election Municipal government selection	Partisan election Nonpartisan election Michigan method

External links

• South Carolina Judicial Merit Selection Commission