Race to succeed sole woman on SC Supreme Court down to 1 man after 2 female judges drop out

Two female judges vying to succeed the sole woman on the South Carolina Supreme Court have withdrawn their bids, putting Judge Gary Hill of Greenville on track to win election to the state’s high court next month.

Judges Aphrodite Konduros, 63, of Simpsonville, and Stephanie Pendarvis McDonald, 53, of Charleston, on Tuesday submitted letters withdrawing their bids, confirmed an attorney for the Judicial Merit Selection Commission, which screens judicial candidates. Tuesday was the same day judicial candidates were allowed to seek pledges of support from the 170 lawmakers who elect them. Before then, candidates could not ask for lawmakers’ commitments.

All three judges sit on the S.C. Court of Appeals, the intermediate court between trial courts and the state Supreme Court.

A candidate qualification report says Hill, born in 1964, is 58 years old, and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1990. From 1989 to 1990, Hill was law clerk to Judge Billy Wilkins on the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, then joined law firm Hill, Wyatt & Bannister, where he later became partner, the report said.

Prior to becoming judge, in 2000, Hill started firm Hill & Hill, LLC with his late father, Leo.

“I am grateful to this Commission and the Legislature for the faith they placed in me 18 years ago when I was elected a circuit judge. I have done my level best to contribute to the fair and impartial administration of justice. There is nothing more professionally satisfying than having a positive impact on others, and knowing you made a difference in an important matter in a fellow person’s life,” Hill said, in part, in his candidacy submission to the vetting committee, the report says.

In response, commission members’ comments said, “The Commission commended Judge Hill for his service as a judge on the Court of Appeals.They noted his great intellect and outstanding reputation which have ably served him in discharging his responsibilities on the Court of Appeals.”

In South Carolina, lawmakers, not voters, elect judges — an often criticized practice because many legislators are attorneys, who sometimes litigate cases before the very judges they vet and elect.

The South Carolina Supreme Court has been thrust into the spotlight after three of the high court’s five justices earlier this month ruled the state’s six-week abortion ban unconstitutional, deciding it violated the state constitutional right to privacy.

Hill, on track to win election to the court Feb. 1, would succeed Justice Kaye Hearn, the only woman on the state Supreme Court, who wrote in the majority in the court’s abortion decision. Hearn, who was due to retire at the end of 2022, will retire this year due to the court’s official retirement age of 72.

Hearn was the second woman ever elected to the S.C. Supreme Court after former state Supreme Court Chief Justice Jean Toal, who was first elected associate justice to the court in 1988.

“Unacceptable for 52% of our population to not have any representation on our state Supreme Court,” Vicki Ringer, director of public affairs with Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, tweeted late Tuesday of the withdrawal news.

Of another concern, House Minority Leader Todd Rutherford noted, is that Chief Justice Donald Beatty, the second Black chief justice on the state Supreme Court since Reconstruction and the only Black justice on the current court, will soon age out.

“(Judge) Gary Hill is very qualified, so I’m not suggesting he was elevated because he was a man,” said Rutherford, a Richland County Democrat, who sits on the judicial vetting committee. “I’m suggesting the other two (Konduros and McDonald) couldn’t be elevated because they’re women.”

Republican State House leaders have vowed to respond to the high court’s 147-page decision.

Gov. Henry McMaster, who was sworn in to a second full term this month, said in his inaugural address, “We must also ensure that the public has confidence in whom and how all our judges are selected — by making the processes more transparent and accountable, so that every South Carolinian, born and unborn, may enjoy life, liberty and happiness.”

Some lawmakers say the Legislature should better vet judicial candidates and focus on “judicial philosophy,” rather than geography, before candidates even get before the full Legislature. Others have said more bluntly that lawmakers should look at changing the makeup of the court.

House Speaker Murrell Smith, R-Sumter, told reporters last week that the court’s decision puts more emphasis on the state Supreme Court race.

“I think you will see us pay a lot more attention to judicial philosophy, whether you believe in the Constitution, ... or whether you believe the Constitution is a malleable document that can be expanded,” Smith, an attorney, said.

“It’s not political to determine what your judicial philosophical leanings are, and I think those are fair questions to ask candidates when they’re running to be elected to the Supreme Court or any judicial office in this state. I think you will see people ask those questions,” Smith continued. “... There’s a code of judicial conduct to which you can’t tell people how you would rule, but I think that does not bar bar them from telling us what’s their philosophy on judicial restraint and on separation of powers.”