AS REFRESHING AS it has been to see legislative attention finally focused on the dearth of black and female judges in South Carolina, the debate itself has been disturbing. So far, it has centered on how much merit should be stripped from the merit selection process, with the loudest voices outside the State House calling for public elections, which are an invitation to political pandering and corruption.

It is therefore a welcome relief to see S.C. Chief Justice Jean Toal injecting some calm and rationality into the debate, with her call for a simple change that would address the problem without reducing the quality of our judges or returning to a time when the top criterion for judicial candidates was legislative connections.

Her solution: Change the makeup of the Judicial Merit Selection Commission, which vets candidates for judgeships, to increase its diversity and dilute the influence of legislators on the panel. Legislators still would elect the judges, from among the three candidates nominated for each seat, and legislators still would be among the members of the selection commission. But they would no longer dominate the commission.

The idea is not original. A similar component was included in one of this year’s proposals to abolish the three-candidate cap; but the House rejected that proposal, opting instead only to gut the merit selection process and resume the discredited practice of legislators electing themselves to the bench.

What’s different about Justice Toal’s proposal is that it is not coupled with any bad ideas. We probably won’t see her lobbying the Legislature, but her call for change should lend weight to this very sensible proposal.

The idea is attractive not just because it’s not as unattractive as the other proposals, but also because it could actually improve the overall quality, and not simply the diversity, of the bench, by further limiting the political games that can be played in the selection process. And, as Justice Toal explains, “since the Legislature does the electing, it enhances public confidence if the front end of the process is strongly representative of the public. It puts different voices in the mix.”

This is a crucial point, and one too often overlooked by supporters of the status quo. The Merit Selection Commission has greatly improved the quality of candidates seeking judgeships, by weeding out less-qualified candidates who used to be able to claim seats based on their legislative connections alone. But the process itself is not devoid of politics; none can be.

It’s obvious in some races which three candidates should be nominated. But in other races several candidates bring similar levels of abilities; in those cases, who gets nominated is a judgment call — and under the current system, one that the six legislators on the 10-member panel have huge sway over. Reducing the legislative influence on that panel, and increasing the number of women and minorities (it is now composed of eight white men, one black man and one black woman) wouldn’t guarantee that more women and African-Americans are nominated, but there is reason to believe that would be the result. Even if it’s not, a different panel makeup would likely result in less of an advantage for those with legislative connections.

Of course, the key to increasing the diversity of the bench remains legislators’ willingness to elect qualified women and African-Americans. But to the extent that legislators are simply insensitive to the problem, and not hostile to solving it, a change like this should help.