S. 1005 revises the statutory salary schedule for several levels of South Carolina judges. The bill increases family court judges’ pay from 92.5% to 95% of the salary of an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. It also makes technical or clarifying wording changes to the salary references for the chief judge and judges of the court of appeals and for circuit court judges.
The bill takes effect upon the Governor’s approval and would amend Section 14-1-200 of the South Carolina Code of Laws. In practical terms, it raises the benchmark salary for family court judges and ties their compensation more closely to the Supreme Court salary scale already used for other judicial offices.
Impact
The bill directly changes state law governing judicial compensation, specifically Section 14-1-200, by increasing the statutory salary percentage for family court judges. According to the fiscal impact statement, the change would increase annual salary expenses for 66 family court judges by about $385,440 and add roughly $289,560 in fringe costs, for at least $675,000 in additional Judicial expenditures beginning in FY 2026-27. The bill could also affect the Judicial Retirement System by increasing its unfunded liability, potentially requiring either a one-time appropriation of about $3.896 million or higher employer contribution rates for affected judicial agencies.
Sentiment
The overall sentiment appears favorable. The Senate advanced the bill on second reading by a wide margin, and the House later passed it with strong support as well, indicating broad legislative agreement with the salary adjustment. The committee report recommended that the bill do pass, and there is no record of committee testimony or public debate in the provided materials showing organized opposition.
Contention
The main point of contention is fiscal cost. The bill’s supporters appear to view the salary increase as a compensation adjustment for family court judges, while the fiscal analysis highlights increased General Fund spending, added fringe benefits, and possible retirement-system costs. A secondary issue is whether the state should fund the retirement liability up front or instead allow employer contribution rates to rise for Judicial and related agencies. No specific policy objections are documented in the provided transcript materials, but the vote totals suggest some legislators may have been concerned about the budgetary impact.