The S.C. House today will consider an amended bill aimed at increasing the number of black candidates nominated for state court seats and making the process more open.

On a voice vote Wednesday, the Senate passed a version that significantly altered a House bill. It returns to the House today, the last regular day of the legislative session.

Given the tight timetable, the House likely would have to accept the Senate version for the bill to become law, said the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Leon Howard, D-Richland.

“This bill is not a cure-all, but it’s a step in the right direction,” Howard said. “We’ve made a lot progress; we now can pass out twice as many (judicial candidates) as we used to.”

Rep. Bill Cotty, R-Richland, believes chances are good that the Senate version will pass the House.

“I think it is a favorable middle ground that will give more chances for minorities to be qualified,” said Cotty, a white lawyer.

The Senate version, pushed by Senate President Pro Tem Glenn McConnell, R-Charleston, would raise to six from three the number of candidates who can be nominated by the Judicial Merit Selection Commission.

Howard’s bill called for the cap to be removed.

He and other black lawmakers say the cap has prevented black candidates from getting nominated and discouraged others from running.

Candidates for Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, administrative law, circuit and family court seats are nominated by the 10-member screening committee and elected by the Legislature.

McConnell is vice chairman of the screening committee, which is made up of six legislators and four non-legislators. Two of the 10 committee members are black; the rest are white.

South Carolina’s circuit and appellate courts are among the least diverse in the nation when compared with the state’s overall black population, according to a study published in March by The State newspaper.

South Carolina and Virginia are the only states whose trial and appellate judges are elected by legislators.

The Senate version of Howard’s bill requires that two-thirds of judicial screening committee members present at a meeting agree to extend nominations beyond three. Howard said he didn’t agree with that provision.

But he likes another Senate provision requiring that all screening committee votes be done in public and be recorded.

Commission member Curtis Shaw of Greenwood said Wednesday that publishing all the votes isn’t a good idea because it “might embarrass some candidates who might not make it.”

But the retired Court of Appeals judge, who is white, said raising the cap doesn’t bother him.

“We do not use any bias” in making nominations, he said.

The Senate struck a controversial amendment to Howard’s bill that would have eliminated the one-year waiting period for legislators who want to run for judgeships. Critics say the amendment would have given lawmakers an unfair advantage.

Reach Brundrett at (803) 771-8484 or rbrundrett@thestate.com.