| Printed Page 3200, May 25 | Printed Page 3220, May 25 |

The following named Representatives voted for Mr. Lawrence:

Anderson         Baxley           Boan

Breeland         Brown, J.        Byrd

Carnell          Cave             Cobb-Hunter

Cotty            Cromer           Delleney

Elliott          Fulmer           Gamble

Govan            Hallman          Harris, J.

Harris, P.       Harrison         Hines

Hodges           Howard           Inabinett

Kirsh            Klauber          Lloyd

Mason            McAbee           McCraw

McElveen         McTeer           Moody-Lawrence

Neilson          Rhoad            Richardson

Rogers           Scott            Seithel

Sheheen          Shissias         Spearman

Stille           Whipper, S.      White

Williams         Young, J.

Whereupon, the PRESIDENT announced that the Honorable Georgia V. Anderson was elected Judge, Family Court, Seventh Judicial Circuit, Seat #1 for the term prescribed by law.

The PRESIDENT announced that nominations were in order to elect a successor to the position of Judge, Family Court, Eighth Judicial Circuit, Seat #2.

Senator McCONNELL, Chairman of the Judicial Screening Committee, reported that the Honorable William K. Charles, Jr. had been screened and that half the members of the Judicial Screening Committee found him unqualified to serve while the other half found him qualified to serve.

Senator McCONNELL published the Findings of the Committee regarding this candidate.

Rep. Carnell nominated the Honorable William K. Charles, Jr.

Senator DRUMMOND spoke on the nomination and seconded the nomination of Judge Charles.

Rep. Klauber raised a Point of Order that since Judge Charles was not found unqualified and since this race was not contested, that a "no" vote would be of no significance.

Rep. Sheheen spoke on the Point of Order and stated that there is precedent from a previous Joint Assembly wherein Lt. Governor STEVENSON, in the matter of the election of Judge Winston Vaught, ruled that a "no" vote where there is only one nominee for the office to be elected is given effect and the candidate must receive an affirmative majority of the votes cast.

The PRESIDENT overruled the Point of Order.

Rep. Klauber asked unanimous consent to be recognized for brief remarks.

Rep. Neilson objected.

The question then was, "Shall Judge Charles be elected to Seat #3 of the Family Court, Eighth Judicial Circuit?"

The Reading Clerk of the Senate called the roll of the Senate and the Senators voted viva voce as their names were called.

Alexander         Bryan            Courtney

Drummond          Ford             Glover

Hayes             Holland          Land

Martin            Matthews         McGill

Moore             O'Dell           Patterson

Saleeby           Short            Smith, J.V.

Washington

Those who voted in the negative were:

Cork              Courson          Elliott

Giese             Leatherman       Leventis

McConnell         Mescher          Passailaigue

Peeler            Rankin           Reese

Richter           Rose             Russell

Setzler           Smith, G.        Waldrep

Wilson

The Reading Clerk of the House called the roll of the House and the Representatives voted viva voce as their names were called.

Those who voted in the affirmative were:

Allison          Anderson         Askins

Bailey           Baxley           Boan

Breeland         Brown, G.        Brown, H.

Brown, J.        Brown, T.        Byrd

Canty            Carnell          Cave

Chamblee         Clyburn          Cobb-Hunter

Elliott          Felder           Govan

Harris, J.       Harris, P.       Harrison

Harvin           Hines            Howard

Inabinett        Jennings         Kelley

Kennedy          Kinon            Klauber

Lanford          Law              Littlejohn

Lloyd            Martin           McAbee



Printed Page 3213 . . . . . Thursday, May 25,
1995

McKay            Moody-LawrenceNeal

Rhoad            Riser            Scott

Stille           Stoddard         Stuart

Thomas           Townsend         Tucker

Waldrop          Whipper, L.      Whipper, S.

White            Wilder           Wilkins

Williams         Witherspoon      Worley

Young, J.

Those who voted in the negative were:

Cain             Cato             Cooper

Cotty            Dantzler         Davenport

Delleney         Easterday        Fair

Fleming          Fulmer           Gamble

Hallman          Harrell          Haskins

Herdklotz        Hodges           Hutson

Jaskwhich        Keegan           Kirsh

Knotts           Koon             Limbaugh

Limehouse        Marchbanks       Mason

McCraw           McElveen         McTeer

Meacham          Neilson          Phillips

Quinn            Rice             Richardson

Robinson         Rogers           Sandifer

Seithel          Sharpe           Sheheen

Shissias         Simrill          Smith, D.

Smith, R.        Spearman         Tripp

Trotter          Vaughn           Wells

Whatley          Wilkes           Wofford

Wright           Young, A.

The following Representative abstained:

Cromer

Whereupon, the PRESIDENT announced that the Honorable William K. Charles, Jr. was elected Judge, Family Court, Eighth Judicial Circuit, Seat #3 for the term prescribed by law.

We, the undersigned members of the General Assembly, having carefully reviewed and considered the information, findings and conclusions reached in the majority report of the Joint Legislative Committee for Judicial Screening, voted in favor of Judge William K. Charles, Jr.'s re-election to the Family Court Bench. Over the past several weeks, we watched with great interest the screenings that were conducted by the Joint Committee for Judicial Screening and it is our collective determination that the majority committee screening report was derived from a process that deteriorated into a contentious, mean-spirited and ineffective exercise as the committee's majority abrogated its duties and responsibilities for effectively and fairly screening judicial candidates by employing arbitrary and capricious standards for the review of certain candidate's credentials and qualifications. We cite as examples the following:

- certain judicial candidates were subjected to marathon screening hearings while other candidates received only cursory review;

- specious allegations against certain candidates were vigorously pursued and hearsay layered upon hearsay was used as an attempt at corroboration;

- public attacks on certain candidates' credibility and integrity were leveled in open session instead of being discussed in executive session, then investigated and substantiated before being published.

For these and many other reasons, we strongly believe that the majority committee report does not accurately reflect upon the credentials, character, integrity, or ability of the candidate seeking to serve the State of South Carolina on the bench. In this regard, we are confident that candidates who were unfairly scrutinized by the committee have the requisite ability, intellect, character, ethics, and integrity to serve and continue to serve our state's judiciary with distinction. Therefore, our

s/Maggie W. Glover s/John W. Matthews, Jr.
s/McKinley Washington, Jr. s/Kay Patterson
s/Robert Ford

We, the undersigned members of the General Assembly, having carefully reviewed and considered the information, findings and conclusions reached in the majority report of the Joint Legislative Committee for Judicial Screening, voted in favor of Judge William K. Charles, Jr.'s re-election to the Family Court Bench. Over the past several weeks, we watched with great interest the screenings that were conducted by the Joint Committee for Judicial Screening and it is our collective determination that the majority committee screening report was derived from a process that deteriorated into a contentious, mean-spirited and ineffective exercise as the committee's majority abrogated its duties and responsibilities for effectively and fairly screening judicial candidates by employing arbitrary and capricious standards for the review of certain candidate's credentials and qualifications. We cite as examples the following:

- certain judicial candidates were subjected to marathon screening hearings while other candidates received only cursory review;

- specious allegations against certain candidates were vigorously pursued and hearsay layered upon hearsay was used as an attempt at corroboration;

- public attacks on certain candidates' credibility and integrity were leveled in open session instead of being discussed in executive session, then investigated and substantiated before being published.

For these and many other reasons, we strongly believe that the majority committee report does not accurately reflect upon the credentials, character, integrity, or ability of the candidate seeking to serve the State of South Carolina on the bench. In this regard, we are confident that candidates who were unfairly scrutinized by the committee have the requisite ability, intellect, character, ethics, and integrity to serve and continue to serve our state's judiciary with distinction. Therefore, our vote in favor of Judge Charles is a vote against the majority committee report and the process from which it was derived.

s/Gilda Cobb-Hunter s/Ralph Anderson
s/Jackson S. Whipper s/Alma W. Byrd

The PRESIDENT announced that nominations were in order to elect a successor to the position of Judge, Seventh Judicial Circuit.

Senator McCONNELL, Chairman of the Judicial Screening Committee, indicated that the Honorable Donald W. Beatty, the Honorable James B. Paslay, and Mr. John M. Rollins, Jr. had been screened and found qualified to serve.

On motion of Senator McCONNELL, the name of Mr. John M. Rollins, Jr. was withdrawn from consideration.

On motion of Rep. Wells, the name of the Honorable James B. Paslay was withdrawn from consideration.

Senator McCONNELL moved that the nominations be closed and, with unanimous consent, the vote was taken by acclamation, resulting in the election of the nominee.

Whereupon, the PRESIDENT announced that the Honorable Donald W. Beatty was elected to the position of Judge, Seventh Judicial Circuit, for the term prescribed by law.

Immediately following the judicial elections, the Joint Assembly proceeded to the election of a successor to Seat #3 on the South Carolina Consumer Affairs Commission pursuant to a Concurrent Resolution adopted by both Houses.

S. 817 -- Senators Courtney, Hayes, Elliott and Reese: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO FIX THURSDAY, MAY 25, 1995, AT 12:00 NOON, AS THE TIME FOR ELECTING A SUCCESSOR TO THE MEMBER OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA CONSUMER AFFAIRS COMMISSION FOR SEAT 3, SO AS TO FILL THE TERM WHICH EXPIRES JUNE 30, 1995.

On motion of Senator COURTNEY, the name of Mr. Harold R. Lesselbaum was withdrawn from consideration.

The Reading Clerk of the Senate called the roll of the Senate and the Senators voted viva voce as their names were called.

The following named Senators voted for Ms. Bloom:

Alexander         Bryan            Cork

Courtney          Ford             Glover

Hayes             Jackson          Land

Lander            Martin           Matthews

McConnell         Moore            Peeler

Russell           Setzler          Short

Smith, J.V.       Stilwell         Waldrep

Washington        Williams         Wilson

The following named Senators voted for Mr. Hinton:

The following named Senators voted for Mr. Neeley:

Elliott           Rankin

On motion of Rep. Sharpe, with unanimous consent, the members of the House voted by electronic roll call.

The following named Representatives voted for Ms. Bloom:

Anderson         Boan             Breeland

Brown, G.        Brown, H.        Byrd

Cato             Cave             Chamblee

Cobb-Hunter      Cooper           Cotty

Delleney         Easterday        Fair

Felder           Fleming          Fulmer



Printed Page 3218 . . . . . Thursday, May 25,
1995

Gamble           HallmanHarrell

Harris, J.       Harvin           Haskins

Herdklotz        Hines            Howard

Inabinett        Jaskwhich        Kennedy

Keyserling       Kinon            Kirsh

Koon             Law              Limehouse

Lloyd            Marchbanks       McCraw

McMahand         Meacham          Moody-Lawrence

Phillips         Rhoad            Rice

Richardson       Robinson         Sandifer

Scott            Seithel          Sheheen

Shissias         Simrill          Stille

Stuart           Tripp            Trotter

Vaughn           Waldrop          Whipper, L.

Whipper, S.      White            Wilder

Wilkins          Williams         Wofford

Young, A.

The following named Representatives voted for Mr. Hinton:

Askins           Baxley           Clyburn

Cromer           Davenport        Harrison

Huff             Jennings         Lanford

Limbaugh         Littlejohn       Mason

Quinn            Riser            Sharpe

Smith, R.        Spearman         Townsend

Wright           Young, J.

The following named Representatives voted for Mr. Neeley:

Brown, T.        Cain             Dantzler

Hutson           Keegan           Kelley

Knotts           Martin           McTeer

Rogers           Thomas           Whatley

Witherspoon      Worley

Whereupon, the PRESIDENT announced that the Honorable Lillian Bloom was elected to Seat #3 on the S.C. Consumer Affairs Commission for the term prescribed by law.

The purposes of the Joint Assembly having been accomplished, the PRESIDENT declared it adjourned; whereupon, the Senate returned to its Chamber, and was called to order by its PRESIDENT.

At 1:35 P.M., the Senate reconvened.

THE SENATE PROCEEDED TO A CALL OF THE UNCONTESTED LOCAL AND STATEWIDE CALENDAR.

The following Bills were read the third time and having received three readings in both Houses, it was ordered that the titles be changed to that of Acts and enrolled for Ratification:

H. 3632 -- Reps. Jennings, Harwell, Knotts, Klauber and Shissias: A BILL TO CONFORM CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF LAW TO THE NEW SOUTH CAROLINA RULES OF EVIDENCE WHICH TAKE EFFECT SEPTEMBER 3, 1995, BY AMENDING SECTION 15-75-10, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE IMPUTATION TO A FEMALE OF A WANT OF CHASTITY SO AS TO DELETE REFERENCES TO THE RULES OF EVIDENCE AT COMMON LAW; BY AMENDING SECTION 19-11-30, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE COMPETENCY OF SPOUSES AS WITNESSES IN LEGAL PROCEEDINGS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT SPOUSES ARE COMPETENT TO BE WITNESSES BECAUSE UNDER THE NEW RULES OF EVIDENCE EVERY PERSON IS DEEMED COMPETENT TO BE A WITNESS UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED; BY AMENDING SECTION 19-11-50, RELATING TO THE

| Printed Page 3200, May 25 | Printed Page 3220, May 25 |

This web page was last updated on Monday, June 29, 2009 at 2:11 P.M.