DOCSLIB.ORG

Report of Candidate Qualifications 2017

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Judicial Merit Selection Commission Report of Candidate Qualifications 2017 Date Draft Report Issued: Thursday, January 11, 2018 Date and Time Final Report Issued: Noon, Tuesday, January 16, 2018 Judicial candidates are not free to seek or accept commitments until Tuesday, January 16, 2018, at Noon. Judicial Merit Selection Commission Sen. Luke A. Rankin, Chairman Erin B. Crawford, Chief Counsel Rep. G. Murrell Smith Jr., Vice-Chairman Emma Dean, Counsel Sen. Ronnie A. Sabb Sen. Tom Young Jr. Rep. J. Todd Rutherford Rep. Chris Murphy Robert W. Hayes Jr. Michael Hitchcock Joshua L. Howard Andrew N. Safran Post Office Box 142 Columbia, South Carolina 29202 (803) 212-6623 January 11, 2018 Dear Members of the General Assembly: Enclosed is the Judicial Merit Selection Commission’s Report of Candidate Qualifications. This Report is designed to assist you in determining how to cast your vote. The Commission is charged by law with ascertaining whether judicial candidates are qualified for service on the bench. In accordance with this mandate, the Commission has thoroughly investigated all judicial candidates for their suitability for judicial service. The Commission found all candidates discussed in this Report to be qualified. The Commission’s finding that a candidate is qualified means that the candidate satisfies both the constitutional criteria for judicial office and the Commission’s evaluative criteria. The attached Report details each candidate’s qualifications as they relate to the Commission’s evaluative criteria. Judicial candidates are prohibited from asking for your commitment until 12:00 Noon on Tuesday, January 16, 2018. Further, members of the General Assembly are not permitted to issue letters of introduction, announcements of candidacy, statements detailing a candidate’s qualifications, or commitments to vote for a candidate until 12:00 Noon on Tuesday, January 16, 2018. In summary, no member of the General Assembly should, orally or in writing, communicate about a candidate’s candidacy until this designated time after release of the Judicial Merit Selection Commission’s Report of Candidate Qualifications. If you find a candidate violating the pledging prohibitions or if you have questions about this report, please contact Erin B. Crawford, Chief Counsel to the Commission, at (803) 212-6689. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Senator Luke A. Rankin Judicial Merit Selection Commission Sen. Luke A. Rankin, Chairman Erin B. Crawford, Chief Counsel Rep. G. Murrell Smith Jr., Vice-Chairman Emma Dean, Counsel Sen. Ronnie A. Sabb Sen. Tom Young Jr. Rep. J. Todd Rutherford Rep. Chris Murphy Robert W. Hayes Jr. Michael Hitchcock Joshua L. Howard Andrew N. Safran Post Office Box 142 Columbia, South Carolina 29202 (803) 212-6623 January 11, 2018 Dear Fellow Members of the General Assembly: This letter is written to call your attention to issues raised during the December 2003 Judicial Merit Selection hearings concerning a judicial candidate’s contact with members of the General Assembly, as well as third parties contacting members on a candidate’s behalf. It is also to remind you of these issues for the Fall 2017 screening. Section 2-19-70(C) of the South Carolina Code contains strict prohibitions concerning candidates seeking or legislators giving their pledges of support or implied endorsement through an introduction prior to 48 hours after the release of the final report of the Judicial Merit Selection Commission (“Commission”). The purpose of this section was to ensure that members of the General Assembly had full access to the report prior to being asked by a candidate to pledge his or her support. The final sentence of Section 2-19-70(C) provides that “the prohibitions of this section do not extend to an announcement of candidacy by the candidate and statements by the candidate detailing the candidate’s qualifications” (emphasis added). Candidates may not, however, contact members of the Commission regarding their candidacy. Please note that six members of the Commission are also legislators. In April 2000, the Commission determined that Section 2-19-70(C) means no member of the General Assembly should engage in any form of communication, written or verbal, concerning a judicial candidate before the 48- hour period expires following the release of the Commission’s report. The Commission would like to clarify and reiterate that until at least 48 hours have expired after the Commission has released its final report of candidate qualifications to the General Assembly, only candidates, and not members of the General Assembly, are permitted to issue letters of introduction, announcements of candidacy, or statements detailing the candidates’ qualifications. The Commission would again like to remind members of the General Assembly that a violation of the screening law is likely a disqualifying offense and must be considered when determining a candidate’s fitness for judicial office. Further, the law requires the Commission to report any violations of the pledging rules by members of the General Assembly to the House or Senate Ethics Committee, as may be applicable. Should you have any questions regarding this letter or any other matter pertaining to the judicial screening process, please do not hesitate to call Erin B. Crawford, Chief Counsel to the Commission, at (803) 212-6689. Sincerely, Senator Luke A. Rankin Chairman TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................1 QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED* Supreme Court Seat 3 The Honorable John W. Kittredge ...............................4 Court of Appeals Seat 8 The Honorable Thomas E. Huff ...................................8 Circuit Court 3rd Judicial Circuit, Seat 2 Kristi Fisher Curtis .....................................................12 Ryan Kirk Griffin .......................................................19 Timothy Ward Murphy ..............................................23 4th Judicial Circuit, Seat 2 The Honorable Roger E. Henderson ..........................32 5th Judicial Circuit, Seat 2 The Honorable L. Casey Manning .............................36 7th Judicial Circuit, Seat 2 The Honorable Grace Gilchrist Knie ..........................39 8th Judicial Circuit, Seat 2 The Honorable Eugene Cannon Griffith Jr. ...............43 10th Judicial Circuit, Seat 2 The Honorable R. Scott Sprouse ................................47 11th Judicial Circuit, Seat 1 The Honorable William Paul Keesley ........................52 11th Judicial Circuit, Seat 2 Kyliene Lee Keesley ..................................................56 Robert Michael Madsen .............................................63 Walton J. McLeod IV .................................................66 12th Judicial Circuit, Seat 1 The Honorable Michael Nettles .................................71 13th Judicial Circuit, Seat 2 The Honorable Letitia Hamilton Verdin ....................74 13th Judicial Circuit, Seat 4 The Honorable Alex Kinlaw Jr. .................................78 John (Jack) Patrick Riordan .......................................81 The Honorable Jessica Ann Salvini ............................88 14th Judicial Circuit, Seat 1 The Honorable Perry McPherson Buckner III ...........95 16th Judicial Circuit, Seat 1 Bryson Johnson Barrowclough ..................................99 Lisa G. Collins ..........................................................102 William Angus McKinnon .......................................114 At-Large, Seat 9 Jerome P. Askins III .................................................119 The Honorable Jennifer Blanchard McCoy ..............123 Grady L. Patterson III ...............................................128 Family Court 2nd Judicial Circuit, Seat 2 Angela W. Abstance .................................................135 3rd Judicial Circuit, Seat 1 Thomas Murray Bultman .........................................142 Edgar Robert Donnald Jr. .........................................146 Ernest Joseph Jarrett .................................................149 6th Judicial Circuit, Seat 2 Catherine S. Hendrix ................................................155 Debra A. Matthews ...................................................159 8th Judicial Circuit, Seat 1 The Honorable Bryan C. Able ..................................165 Ashley Phillips Case .................................................170 Matthew Price Turner ...............................................175 11th Judicial Circuit, Seat 2 Huntley Smith Crouch ..............................................181 12th Judicial Circuit, Seat 2 FitzLee Howard McEachin ......................................188 Stuart Wesley Snow Sr. ............................................191 The Honorable Elizabeth Biggerstaff York ..............195 Administrative Law Court Seat 5 The Honorable Shirley Cantey Robinson .................201 QUALIFIED, BUT NOT NOMINATED Circuit Court 3rd Judicial Circuit, Seat 2 Samuel LaNue Floyd ................................................204 11th Judicial Circuit, Seat 2 Amy V. Cofield ........................................................208 Donna Elder ..............................................................214 David Shawn Graham ..............................................219 13th Judicial Circuit, Seat 4 Andrew (Andy) Burke Moorman Sr. .......................223 16th Judicial Circuit, Seat 1 James Michael Morton .............................................231 At-Large,
Recommended publications
  • Is the Sunshine Chilly

    Is the Sunshine Chilly

    South Carolina Law Review Volume 55 Issue 4 SYMPOSIUM: COURT-ENFORCED Article 10 SECRECY Summer 2004 Settlements and Secrets: Is the Sunshine Chilly James E. Rooks Jr. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/sclr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Rooks, James E. Jr. (2004) "Settlements and Secrets: Is the Sunshine Chilly," South Carolina Law Review: Vol. 55 : Iss. 4 , Article 10. Available at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/sclr/vol55/iss4/10 This Symposium Paper is brought to you by the Law Reviews and Journals at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in South Carolina Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Rooks: Settlements and Secrets: Is the Sunshine Chilly SETTLEMENTS AND SECRETS: Is THE SUNSHINE CHILLY? JAMES E. ROOKS JR." I. OPEN COURTS, CLOSED FILES ................................. 859 II. JUDICIAL AND LEGISLATIVE EFFORTS TO DEAL WITH OVERUSE AND ABUSE OF SECRECY ........................ 861 III. THE "CHILLED SETTLEMENTS" ARGUMENT ....................... 863 IV. FEDERAL JUDGES CONFRONT SECRET SETTLEMENTS ............... 865 V. DOES SECRECY PROMOTE SETrLEMENT? DOES SUNSHINE "CHILL" SETrLEMENTS? ... ....... ...... ...... ....... 870 VI. WHERE ARE THE CHILLED SETTLEMENTS? ...... ....... ....... 872 VII. FROM SPECULATION TO SOPHISTRY .............................. 874 I. OPEN COURTS, CLOSED FILES American lawyers recognize that the openness of the courts, and the public nature of their proceedings and records, are hallmarks of our system ofjustice. Yet few lawyers who represent consumers in United States courts can be unaware of the national public policy debate on the frequent use and abuse of secrecy in our civil justice system. "Secrecy," in this debate, refers collectively to a number of legal mechanisms that may be used to conceal litigation information from the public, from government regulators, from attorneys handling similar cases, and in some cases even from other courts.
  • The General Assembly of South Carolina 124Th Session List of Members

    The General Assembly of South Carolina 124Th Session List of Members

    THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF SOUTH CAROLINA 124TH SESSION LIST OF MEMBERS FIRST REGULAR SESSION Convening Tuesday, January 12, 2021 in Columbia (CORRECTED TO DECEMBER 31, 2020) Published by: Charles F. Reid, Clerk South Carolina House of Representatives Members of the 124th General Assembly of South Carolina The Senate 30 Republicans, 16 Democrats, Total 46. All Senators elected in 2020 to serve until Monday after the General Election in November of 2024. Pursuant to Section 2-1-60 of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 513 of 1984, Senators are elected from 46 single member districts. [D] after the name indicates Democrat and [R] indicates Republican. Explanation of Reference Marks ✶ Indicates 2020 Senators re-elected . 40 Without previous legislative service (unmarked) . 6 Vacancies . 0 Total Membership 2020-2024 . 46 Information Telephones President's Office . (803) 212-6430 President Pro Tempore Emeritus' Office (111 Gressette Bldg.). (803) 212-6455 Clerk's Office (401 Gressette Bldg.) . (803) 212-6200 (1st Floor, State House) . (803) 212-6700 Agriculture & Natural Resources Com. (402 Gressette Bldg.) . (803) 212-6230 Banking & Insurance Com. (410 Gressette Bldg.) . (803) 212-6240 Bookkeeping (534 Brown Bldg.) . (803) 212-6550 Corrections & Penology Com. (211 Gressette Bldg.) . (803) 212-6420 Education Com. (404 Gressette Bldg.) . (803) 212-6250 Ethics Com. (205 Gressette Bldg.) . (803) 212-6410 Family and Veterans' Services (303 Gressette Bldg.) . (803) 212-6320 Finance Com. (111 Gressette Bldg.) . (803) 212-6640 Fish, Game & Forestry Com. (305 Gressette Bldg.) . (803) 212-6340 Health Care (Nurse) (511-B Gressette Bldg.) . (803) 212-6175 Interstate Cooperation Com. (213 Gressette Bldg.) .
  • Senate Filings March 30.Xlsx

    Senate Filings March 30.Xlsx

    SC ALLIANCE TO FIX OUR ROADS 2020 SENATE FILINGS APRIL 2, 2020 District Counties Served First (MI) Last / Suffix Party Primary Election General Election 1 OCONEE,PICKENS Thomas C Alexander Republican unopposed unopposed 2 PICKENS Rex Rice Republican unopposed unopposed Craig Wooten Republican Richard Cash* (R) Winner of Republican Primary 3 ANDERSON Richard Cash Republican Craig Wooten (R) Judith Polson (D) Judith Polson Democrat Mike Gambrell Republican Mike Gambrell* (R) 4 ABBEVILLE,ANDERSON,GREENWOOD Jose Villa (D) Jose Villa Democrat Tom Corbin Republican Tom Corbin* (R) Winner of Republican Primary 5 GREENVILLE,SPARTANBURG Dave Edwards (R) Michael McCord (D) Michael McCord Democrat Dave Edwards Republican Dwight A Loftis Republican Dwight Loftis* (R) 6 GREENVILLE Hao Wu (D) Hao Wu Democrat Karl B Allen Democrat Karl Allen* (D) Winner of Democratic Primary 7 GREENVILLE Fletcher Smith Democrat Fletcher Smith (D) Jack Logan (R) Jack Logan Republican Ross Turner Republican Ross Turner* (R) 8 GREENVILLE Janice Curtis (R) Janice S Curtis Republican 9 GREENVILLE,LAURENS Danny Verdin Republican unopposed unopposed Floyd Nicholson Democrat Bryan Hope (R) Winner of Republican Primary 10 ABBEVILLE,GREENWOOD,MCCORMICK,SALUDA Bryan Hope Republican Billy Garrett (R) Floyd Nicholson*(D) Billy Garrett Republican Josh Kimbrell Republican Glenn Reese* (D) 11 SPARTANBURG Glenn Reese Democrat Josh Kimbrell (R) Scott Talley Republican Scott Talley*(R) Winner of Republican Primary 12 GREENVILLE,SPARTANBURG Mark Lynch Republican Mark Lynch (R) Dawn Bingham
  • Supreme Court of the United States

    Supreme Court of the United States

    No. 16-5294 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States JAMES EDMOND MCWILLIAMS, JR., Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON S. DUNN, COMMISSIONER, ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Respondents. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES CouRT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRcuIT BRIEF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR PUBLIC DEFENSE, NATIONAL LEGAL AID AND DEFENDER ASSOCIATION AND TWENTY-THREE CAPITAL ATTORNEYS AND INVESTIGATORS AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER JANET MOORE, Co-Chair, GEORGE H. KENDALL Amicus Committee, National Counsel of Record Association for Public Defense JENAY NURSE For identification purposes only: CORRINE A. IRISH ASSOciATE PROFESSOR SQUIRE PATTON BOggS (US) LLP UNIVERSITY OF CINciNNATI 30 Rockefeller Plaza COLLEGE OF LAW New York, New York 10112 2540 Clifton Avenue (212) 872-9800 Cincinnati OH 45221 [email protected] JO-ANN WALLACE, President DAVID OSCAR MARKUS, Co-Chair, and CEO Amicus Committee National TRAVIS STEARNS, of Counsel Association of Criminal NATIONAL LEGAL AID AND Defense Lawyers DEFENDER ASSOciATION 40 NW Third Street, PH1 1901 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Miami, FL 33128 Suite 500 Washington, DC 20006 Counsel for Amicus Curiae March 6, 2017 271654 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE............................. 1 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ............................ 3 ARGUMENT ............................................................... 3 I. AKE V. OKLAHOMA CLEARLY ESTABLISHED AN INDIGENT DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO THE ASSISTANCE OF AN INDEPENDENT MENTAL HEALTH EXPERT AT A CAPITAL SENTENCING PROCEEDING ................................................. 3 A. Ake Unequivocally Requires the Provision of an Independent Expert ........................... 5 B. Ake’s Requirement of a State Funded Mental Health Expert Reinforced Pre-existing State Practice in Most Jurisdictions ..........
  • Information Telephones 55 Information Telephones President’S Office

    Information Telephones 55 Information Telephones President’S Office

    Senate Information Telephones 55 Information Telephones President’s Office . .(803) 212-6430 President Pro Tempore Emeritus’ Office (111 Gressette Bldg.) . .(803) 212-6455 Clerk’s Office (401 Gressette Bldg.) . .(803) 212-6200 (1st Floor, State House) . .(803) 212-6700 Agriculture & Natural Resources Com. (402 Gressette Bldg.) . .(803) 212-6230 Banking & Insurance Com. (410 Gressette Bldg.) . .(803) 212-6240 Bookkeeping (534 Brown Bldg.) . .(803) 212-6550 Corrections & Penology Com. (211 Gressette Bldg.) . .(803) 212-6420 Education Com. (404 Gressette Bldg.) . .(803) 212-6250 Ethics Com. (205 Gressette Bldg.) . .(803) 212-6410 Family & Veterans’ Services Com. (303 Gressette Bldg.) . .(803) 212-6320 Finance Com. (111 Gressette Bldg.) . .(803) 212-6640 Fish, Game & Forestry Com. (305 Gressette Bldg.) . .(803) 212-6340 Health Care (Nurse) (511-B Gressette Bldg.) . .(803) 212-6175 Interstate Cooperation Com. (213 Gressette Bldg.) . .(803) 212-6430 Judiciary Com. (101 Gressette Bldg.) . .(803) 212-6610 Labor, Commerce & Industry Com. (313 Gressette Bldg.) . .(803) 212-6220 Legislative Bill Room (1st Floor, State House) . .(803) 734-1517 Legislative Council (State House/434 Dennis Bldg.) . .(803) 212-4500 Legislative Oversight Com. (213 Gressette Bldg.) . .(803) 212-6430 Legislative Services Agency (223 Blatt Bldg.) . .(803) 212-4420 Mail Room (210 Gressette Bldg.) . .(803) 212-6465 Medical Affairs Com. (213 Gressette Bldg.) . .(803) 212-6430 Medical Station (3rd Floor, State House) . .(803) 212-6770 Protective Services (Garage Entrance) . .(803) 734-2422 Protective Services (Front Entrance) . .(803) 734-1111 Research (301 Gressette Bldg.) . .(803) 212-6300 Rules Com. (311 Gressette Bldg.) . .(803) 212-6330 Security (103 Gressette Bldg.) . .(803) 212-6911 Senate Desk (2nd Floor, State House) .
  • Inferiority Complex: Should State Courts Follow Lower Federal Court Precedent on the Meaning of Federal Law?

    Inferiority Complex: Should State Courts Follow Lower Federal Court Precedent on the Meaning of Federal Law?

    Inferiority Complex: Should State Courts Follow Lower Federal Court Precedent on the Meaning of Federal Law? Amanda Frost* The conventional wisdom is that state courts need not follow lower federal court precedent when interpreting federal law. Upon closer inspection, however, the question of how state courts should treat lower federal court precedent is not so clear. Although most state courts now take the conventional approach, a few contend that they are obligated to follow the lower federal courts, and two federal courts of appeals have declared that their decisions are binding on state courts. The Constitution’s text and structure send mixed messages about the relationship between state and lower federal courts, and the Supreme Court has never squarely addressed the matter. Remarkably, this significant question about the interplay between the state and federal judicial systems lingers unresolved more than two-hundred years after the Constitution’s ratification. This Article uses this question to explore the relationship between state and lower federal courts. As a constitutional matter, it can be argued that state courts were intended to play a subordinate role to the lower federal courts when interpreting federal law, even if they are viewed as equals when it comes to finding facts and applying facts to law. Furthermore, Congress’s decision to create the lower federal courts, and then assign them broad federal question jurisdiction, arguably displaces state court authority to interpret federal law independently—particularly in an era in which the Supreme Court lacks the capacity to resolve many of the splits between the federal and state court systems.
  • 28Th Annual Criminal Practice in South Carolina Friday, February 22, 2019

    28Th Annual Criminal Practice in South Carolina Friday, February 22, 2019

    28th Annual Criminal Practice in South Carolina Friday, February 22, 2019 presented by The South Carolina Bar Continuing Legal Education Division http://www.scbar.org/CLE SC Supreme Court Commission on CLE Course No. 190837 Table of Contents Agenda ................................................................................................................................................. 3 Faculty Bios ......................................................................................................................................... 5 State Criminal Practice: Significant Developments in 2018 ..........................................................15 Federal Criminal Practice : Significant Developments in 2018 .....................................................32 Legislative Review and Preview: Significant 2018 Legislation, Pre-Filed Bills for 2019, and Rule Changes ...............................................................................................................................................37 Amie Clifford, Tommy Pope Expungements Primer .......................................................................................................................61 Adam Whitsett Developments and Issues in Juveniles Justice .................................................................................84 L. Eden Hendrick Keeping Up with Trends and Issues in Criminal Defense ............................................................104 Christopher Adams PCR-Proofing Your Case ................................................................................................................112
  • U.S.A. Vs. the World: Right to Public Access of Court Records and Confidentiality Concerns in Commercial Arbitration

    U.S.A. Vs. the World: Right to Public Access of Court Records and Confidentiality Concerns in Commercial Arbitration

    South Carolina Journal of International Law and Business Volume 15 Issue 1 Fall Article 6 2018 U.S.A. vs. the World: Right to Public Access of Court Records and Confidentiality Concerns in Commercial Arbitration Christopher M. Campbell Willoughby & Hoefer, Columbia, South Carolina Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/scjilb Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Campbell, Christopher M. (2018) "U.S.A. vs. the World: Right to Public Access of Court Records and Confidentiality Concerns in Commercial Arbitration," South Carolina Journal of International Law and Business: Vol. 15 : Iss. 1 , Article 6. Available at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/scjilb/vol15/iss1/6 This Article is brought to you by the Law Reviews and Journals at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in South Carolina Journal of International Law and Business by an authorized editor of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. U.S.A. VS. THE WORLD: RIGHT TO PUBLIC ACCESS OF COURT RECORDS AND CONFIDENTIALITY CONCERNS IN COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION By: Christopher M. Campbell, Esq.* ABSTRACT The United States of America, often a paragon of the rule of law, has a long-established tradition of providing legal regimes and mechanisms that are the inspiration for other legal frameworks around the world. However, even the oldest traditions sometimes require occasional contemporary modification. Such is the case in the U.S. as * Christopher M. Campbell is an associate at Willoughby & Hoefer in Columbia, South Carolina focusing on administrative law, business law, and litigation, in particular international commercial arbitration. He received his LL.M.
  • 2020 SC Senate and House Primary Races SC Congressional Races Ballot Questions

    2020 SC Senate and House Primary Races SC Congressional Races Ballot Questions

    2020 SC Senate and House Primary Races SC Congressional Races Ballot Questions Projected Winners Highlighted Below ** Runoff SC Senate Primary Races Name District Primary Opposition Republicans Sen. Richard Cash 56.76% District 3, Anderson Craig Wooten (R) Sen. Tom Corbin 70.37% District 5, Spartanburg Dave Edwards (R) Sen. Ross Turner 68.20% District 8, Greenville Janice Curtis (R) Sen. Scott Talley 52.82% District 12, Greenville, Mark Lynch (R) Spartanburg Sen. Ronnie Cromer 62.14% District 18, Lexington, Charles Bumgardner (R) Newberry, Union Sen. Shane Massey 78.84% District 25, Aiken, Edgefield, Susan Swanson (R) Lexington, McCormick, Saluda Sen. Luke Rankin 40.19% ** District 33, Horry County John Gallman (R) 34.42% ** Carter Smith (R) Sen. Sandy Senn District 41, Charleston Jason Mills (D) Sam Skardon (D)63.04% Democrats Sen. Karl Allen 70.12% District 7, Greenville Fletcher Smith (D) Sen. Floyd Nicholson District 10, Greenwood Billy Garrett (R) Bryan Hope (R) Sen. Mike Fanning 67.93% District 17, Chester, Fairfield, Mary Gail Douglas (D) York Sen. Dick Harpootlian District 20, Richland Randy Dickey (R) Benjamin Dunn (R) 71.52% Sen. Mia McCleod District 22, Richland Lee Blatt (R) 76.26% David Larson (R) Sen. Nikki Setzler District 26, Lexington Perry Finch (R) Chris Smith (R) 68.79% Sen. Gerald Malloy District 29, Marlboro JD Chaplin (R) 82.40% Ronald Reese Page (R) Sen. Kent Williams 76.73% District 30, Dillon, Florence, Patrick Richardson (D) Horry Marion, Marlboro Sen. Ronnie Saab 71.22% District 32, Berkeley, Manley Collins (D) Florence, Georgetown, Horry, Kelly Spann (D) Williamsburg Ted Brown (D) Sen.
  • SUMMARY INJUSTICE: a Look at Constitutional Deficiencies in South Carolina’S Summary Courts - T E L O I D S S a E N I I A

    SUMMARY INJUSTICE: a Look at Constitutional Deficiencies in South Carolina’S Summary Courts - T E L O I D S S a E N I I A

    SUMMARY INJUSTICE: A Look at Constitutional Deficiencies in South Carolina’s Summary Courts Copyright © 2016 National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial- NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/. It may be reproduced, provided that no SOUTH R charge is imposed, and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers is acknowledged CAROLINA E as the original publisher and the copyright holder. For any other form of reproduction, please P contact NACDL for permission. O R For more information contact: T NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS TM 1660 L Street NW, 12th Floor Washington, DC 20036 202-872-8600 www.nacdl.org This publication is available online at www.nacdl.org/summaryinjustice SUMMARY INJUSTICE: A Look at Constitutional Deficiencies in South Carolina’s Summary Courts LEAD AUTHOR Diane DePietropaolo Price Public Defense Training Manager National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS Colette Tvedt Public Defense Training and Reform Director National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers Emma Andersson R SOUTH E CAROLINA Staff Attorney P ACLU Criminal Law Reform Project O R T Tanya Greene Advocacy and Policy Counsel American Civil Liberties Union RESEARCH ASSISTANCE Susan Dunn Legal Director ACLU of South Carolina Rachel Shur Legal Intern ACLU Criminal Law Reform Project Table of Contents Acknowledgements . 3 About the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers . 4 About American Civil Liberties Union . 5 Preface . 6 Executive Summary . 7 Introduction . 8 Overview of South Carolina Summary Court System .
  • List of Members of the South Carolina General Assembly

    List of Members of the South Carolina General Assembly

    THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF SOUTH CAROLINA 124TH SESSION LIST OF MEMBERS FIRST REGULAR SESSION Convening Tuesday, January 12, 2021 in Columbia (CORRECTED TO SEPTEMBER 24, 2021) Published by: Charles F. Reid, Clerk South Carolina House of Representatives Members of the 124th General Assembly of South Carolina The Senate 30 Republicans, 16 Democrats, Total 46. All Senators elected in 2020 to serve until Monday after the General Election in November of 2024. Pursuant to Section 2-1-60 of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 513 of 1984, Senators are elected from 46 single member districts. [D] after the name indicates Democrat and [R] indicates Republican. Explanation of Reference Marks ✶ Indicates 2020 Senators re-elected . 40 Without previous legislative service (unmarked) . 6 Vacancies . 0 Total Membership 2020-2024 . 46 Information Telephones President's Office . (803) 212-6430 President Pro Tempore Emeritus' Office (111 Gressette Bldg.). (803) 212-6455 Clerk's Office (401 Gressette Bldg.) . (803) 212-6200 (1st Floor, State House) . (803) 212-6700 Agriculture & Natural Resources Com. (402 Gressette Bldg.) . (803) 212-6230 Banking & Insurance Com. (410 Gressette Bldg.) . (803) 212-6240 Bookkeeping (534 Brown Bldg.) . (803) 212-6550 Corrections & Penology Com. (211 Gressette Bldg.) . (803) 212-6420 Education Com. (404 Gressette Bldg.) . (803) 212-6250 Ethics Com. (205 Gressette Bldg.) . (803) 212-6410 Family and Veterans' Services (303 Gressette Bldg.) . (803) 212-6320 Finance Com. (111 Gressette Bldg.) . (803) 212-6640 Fish, Game & Forestry Com. (305 Gressette Bldg.) . (803) 212-6340 Health Care (Nurse) (511-B Gressette Bldg.) . (803) 212-6175 Interstate Cooperation Com. (213 Gressette Bldg.) .
  • Journal Senate State of South Carolina

    Journal Senate State of South Carolina

    NO. 3 JOURNAL OF THE SENATE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA REGULAR SESSION BEGINNING TUESDAY, JANUARY 13, 2015 _________ THURSDAY, JANUARY 15, 2015 Thursday, January 15, 2015 (Statewide Session) Indicates Matter Stricken Indicates New Matter The Senate assembled at 11:00 A.M., the hour to which it stood adjourned, and was called to order by the PRESIDENT, The Honorable Henry D. McMaster, Lieutenant Governor of South Carolina. A quorum being present, the proceedings were opened with a devotion by the Chaplain as follows: We read in Numbers that Aaron is to encourage the people: “... so that they may be ready to do the work of the Lord.” (Numbers 8:11b) Bow in prayer with me if you will: Holy God, the tasks before this Body are indeed formidable this year. We ask that You make each of Your servants in this place ready not only to tackle the work before them, but also grant to each Senator the resolve she and he will need as they wrestle with issues and strive to bring about worthwhile results. As Senators and staff members work together, may they never lose sight of their supreme goal: to do what is best for our citizens, as well as to honor You, O God. We also ask that You embrace in Your care Betty Graham and her family in the death yesterday of Betty’s sister, Patricia Duggan. In Your loving name we pray, Lord. Amen. The PRESIDENT called for Petitions, Memorials, Presentments of Grand Juries and such like papers. MESSAGE FROM THE GOVERNOR The following appointments were transmitted by the Honorable Nikki Randhawa Haley: Statewide Appointments Initial Appointment, South Carolina State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners, with the term to commence April 6, 2014, and to expire April 6, 2018 Veterinarian 4th District: Katherine Ann George, 335 Jordon Creek Farm Road, Wellford, SC 29385 VICE Walter C.