South Carolina House Bill H4930

South Carolina 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/14/26
• Refer: 1/14/26

Caption

A JOINT RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 27, ARTICLE V OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, RELATING TO THE JUDICIAL MERIT SELECTION COMMISSION, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIAL MERIT SELECTION COMMISSION MUST BE APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR.

Summary

H4930 is a joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment to change how South Carolina’s Judicial Merit Selection Commission is appointed. Under current constitutional language, the General Assembly establishes the commission and plays the central role in selecting judges from the commission’s nominees. This bill would revise Article V, Section 27 to provide that the Governor appoints all members of the Judicial Merit Selection Commission, with members serving terms set by law. The amendment would preserve the commission’s core function of screening and evaluating candidates for judicial offices filled by election of the General Assembly, including circuit court, court of appeals, Supreme Court, and other covered courts. It also retains existing restrictions that require legislators to resign before seeking judicial office and imposes a waiting period for former commission members before they may apply for judicial positions. If approved by the General Assembly, the amendment would be submitted to voters at the next general election for representatives, with the ballot question specifically asking whether the Governor should appoint all commission members.

Impact

If enacted and ratified by voters, H4930 would amend the South Carolina Constitution and shift appointment authority for the Judicial Merit Selection Commission from the General Assembly to the Governor. That would alter the balance of power in the judicial selection process while leaving the commission’s screening role intact. The bill would affect the constitutional framework governing judicial nominations and the statutes or procedures that implement commission terms and eligibility rules, though those details would still need to be established by law.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, the measure appears to be a structural reform proposal rather than a controversial policy change with documented public testimony in this record. The caption suggests an effort to increase executive control over judicial appointments, which may appeal to supporters of reforming legislative influence in judicial selection. However, no formal vote history or transcript is available here to show whether the proposal has broad support or organized opposition.

Contention

The main point of contention is likely institutional control over the judicial selection process: supporters may favor gubernatorial appointment as a way to reduce legislative dominance, while opponents may view it as concentrating too much power in the executive branch. Another likely issue is whether changing the commission’s appointing authority would improve independence and transparency or instead create new political pressures. Because no committee transcript or vote record is provided, specific named opponents or supporters cannot be identified from the available materials.