ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our greatest stories as soon as they are published.
COLOMBIA, SC – When the South Carolina legislature meets again next week, lawmakers say a priority will be to increase the scrutiny of local judge magistrates, many of whom are among the busiest, but least qualified, lawyers.
A 2019 series from The Post and Courier and ProPublica exposed how a flawed system of selection and oversight has provided fertile ground for incompetence and corruption in court.
Handpicked by politicians, some magistrates took bribes, stole money, thwarted trials, stomped on constitutional protections and mismanaged even the most basic elements of criminal proceedings.
And while they handle hundreds of thousands of civil cases and misdemeanors each year, about three-quarters of the state’s magistrates have never practiced law in their lives, the investigation concluded.
Senator Tom Davis, a Republican, is asking his colleagues in the upper house in this legislative session to strengthen legal qualifications for magistrates and add a layer of scrutiny to their appointments. Another new proposal would eliminate loopholes that allowed magistrates to protect ethical offenses or to preside for years, despite expired terms.
These proposed pieces of legislation, part of more than half a dozen pre-archived bills aiming at magistrate reforms, received resounding endorsements in interviews with key members of the 23-person state Senate Judiciary Committee, who would review any proposal before a vote in plenary.
“This is good,” said Senator Chip Campsen, a Republican and senior member of the committee who said he had been eyeing changes in the state’s magistrate nomination process for years. “I would make this a priority.”
Proponents of the current system claim that magistrates play an essential role in the state justice system – cleaning up minor case portfolios so that state district judges have time to deal with major crimes and civil cases. And, their advocates say, non-legal magistrates have proven capable of fulfilling their duties.
“A law degree is not a prerequisite for being a good judge,” Rep. Murrell Smith told the Post and Courier and ProPublica during the course of his investigation.
Still, Smith, a leading Republican leader in the state chamber, also indicated that he and his colleagues in the chamber would welcome reforms that would strengthen the legal acumen of state magistrates.
Although the state constitution places the appointments of magistrates in the hands of the governor, in practice the executive office acts primarily as a rubber stamp. State senators have ample authority to choose candidates, and selections are rarely questioned before being confirmed by verbal votes in the upper house.
The process amounts to virtually no scrutiny for the nearly 300 magistrates across the state, The Post and Courier and ProPublica found.
Davis pointed to this report as a direct catalyst for his and other more recent reform proposals.
“Individuals are getting in touch with representatives and senators – that comes with pre-filed bills,” said Davis. “It is an indication of public awareness.”
The investigation found that a flaw in the enforcement process removed the requirement for magistrates to disclose whether they had been punished for misconduct by the state’s judicial review body. A dozen judges with previous ethical offenses skated to their last appointment without question, the investigation concluded.
A bill by Senator Tom Young, a Republican, aims to close that gap. His proposal would require the entire Senate to be informed of a magistrate’s previous ethical offenses before confirmation votes. As it is, unless magistrates voluntarily provide information, even members of the local delegation are often left in the dark. Young, also a member of the Judiciary Committee, told the Post and Courier that more detailed disclosures are essential for selecting qualified lawyers.
His bill would also eliminate the practice of keeping magistrates in court for years, despite expired terms. The Post and Courier and ProPublica found that about a quarter of South Carolina magistrates preside with this “remnant” status. This has allowed the judges to escape the appointment process and avoid any doubts about their service.
Magistrates are the state’s busiest judges. They participate in the trial of cases involving petty theft, drunk driving, domestic violence, assaults and disorderly conduct. They also issue arrest warrants, set bail, preside over trials and conduct preliminary hearings to assess whether there is sufficient probable cause to support criminal charges such as murder, rape and theft.
Still, the investigation by the news organizations found that most magistrates are not lawyers and could not represent someone in court – although they preside over them.
Davis emphasized that the state must strengthen its legal qualifications for all magistrates. Although he did not propose details, he would at least increase his mandatory legal training from the current minimum of 57 and a half hours.
In comparison, South Carolina is more rigid with its barbers: its training school requires 1,500 hours.