State Supreme Court hears case on judicial selection

Associated Press

COLUMBIA, S.C. - The state Supreme Court will decide whether the commission that screens lawyers who want to be judges properly reviewed the qualifications of a woman who has been elected as a judge for a Lowcountry circuit.

The justices heard arguments Wednesday on Carmen Tevis Mullen, who the Legislature elected to the bench in February. The case is rapidly making it through the system in part because Mullen is scheduled to be sworn in next month.

The lawsuit, filed by Hilton Head Island lawyer Jim Herring and the South Carolina Public Interest Foundation, says the Judicial Merit Selection Commission failed to properly screen Mullen.

Lawyers for both sides said the justices could agree with a lower court that tossed out the case, send the case back to the lower court for more study or postpone Mullen's swearing in and appoint a special investigator to take testimony and continue with the case.

Herring and the foundation say Mullen was nominated to replace Judge Jackson Gregory despite concerns about whether she actually lived and worked in the 14th Judicial Circuit, which covers Beaufort, Jasper, Colleton, Allendale and Hampton counties.

Mullen always presented herself as a Charleston lawyer and resident both professionally and in official documents up until she applied for the judgeship using her husband's Hilton Head Island address, argued attorney Jim Carpenter, who is representing the foundation.

State law says nominees for a judgeship only need to be registered voters in the district, a requirement Mullen met by changing her voter registration in October, according to Michael Hitchcock, the lawyer defending the commission.

But Carpenter argued that previous court rulings and laws emphasize that judicial candidates should be from a district, not just a resident at the time of election.

"The Judicial Merit Selection Commission has a constitutional duty to investigate the qualifications of a candidate beyond those (named) by the constitution," Carpenter said.

Chief Justice Jean Toal did most of the questioning of lawyers for each side of the case, focusing on whether the Supreme Court had the authority to review a decision made by the commission, which is part of the legislature, without usurping its authority.

"You are essentially asking us to rule on a question about the commissions actions that are predominantly political in nature," Toal said. "That puts us right in the political soup."