Women in politics: How a qualified, unopposed female judicial candidate just lost an election in SC
READ MORE
Women in politics
South Carolina set a record with six “sister senators.” Now it has two. Columnist Matthew T. Hall asked why.
Expand All
If you don’t think that South Carolina’s judicial selection system is flawed, consider the General Assembly’s recent 54-93 vote against qualified candidate Melissa Inzerillo, who had no opponents for a soon-to-be vacant York County judgeship.
But first consider the process that preceded it: the commission that vetted her found her to be so qualified, and even well-qualified in some areas, that it recommended lawmakers approve her for the job in a conversation so short commissioners used just 54 words.
“The next race is for Circuit Court, 16th Circuit, seat two. We have one candidate, Melissa A. Inzerillo.”
“Mr. Chairman, I move that we find the candidate qualified and nominated.”
“All right, is there a second?”
“Second.”
“All right, all in favor say aye or raise your hand.”
“Aye.”
“Any opposition, there being none.”
Last year, this Judicial Merit Selection Commission — a group of six lawmakers and four civilians empowered by a 1997 state law to make recommendations on judge candidates to the General Assembly for its final vote — found no red flags in the 48-year-old public defender’s background: no evidence of unethical conduct or founded grievances or criminal allegations against her, no evidence of troubled finances, and no problems “with her diligence and industry.”
In fact, she showed “an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges,” was found to be “intelligent and knowledgeable,” to have “handled her financial affairs responsibly,” to be “punctual and attentive,” and to be physically and mentally capable of performing the duties of a judge.
She was told, “You’re going to do a great job.”
This is an inside look at why she won’t get the chance.
‘Don’t apologize, be strong’
In an interview two weeks before its unanimous recommendation, the commission told Inzerillo it had received 164 ballot box surveys from the South Carolina Bar about her with 44 additional comments, including those calling her “very smart, organized, patient, and knowledgeable,” “highly regarded among the legal community,” and “smart and a fine character, would be a credit to the bench.”
Just 14 commenters raised concerns about her lack of civil court experience, her ethical fitness and her impartiality. She said she understood the concerns about her being a public defender but vowed to be fair and impartial as a judge. One commissioner urged her not to apologize about being a public defender
“Don’t apologize, be strong, and I know you’re going to do a great job,” he said.
Ultimately, the South Carolina Bar, an advisory citizens committee and the commission all found her qualified or well qualified in nine categories, including ethical fitness, professional and academic ability, character, reputation, and judicial temperament.
Importantly for the General Assembly, and really anyone who would appear before her as a judge, the commission wrote that it “believes that Ms. Inzerillo’s temperament would be excellent,” touted her “reputation as a hard-working attorney” and highlighted her “willingness to help others and her commitment to work toward bettering the justice system in South Carolina.”
She was called “qualified,” not “well-qualified,” in terms of experience only because she has not been a civil lawyer, but she “certainly has the aptitude to learn what she needs to learn to serve as a Circuit Court Judge.”
Yet the mostly male, mostly Republican majorities in the state Senate and state House of Representatives, many of whom are lawyers, rejected the South Carolina native and 24-year member of the state bar who had told the commission it would be a “great honor” to be a judge.
The South Carolina Freedom Caucus at least explained its no votes in a statement, saying without sharing any evidence, “Per comments made by other trusted conservative legislators, Miss Inzerillo does not strongly support our men and women in blue” and suggesting, again without offering any proof of the claim, that other candidates had been “forced” from the field.
She would have become York County’s first female Circuit Court judge. She should have.
“If our elected representatives don’t like the system, then they should fix it,” said Liz Duda, who is on the board of directors of South Carolina Women in Leadership. “Don’t take it out on the qualified female candidate or contribute to a backlog of cases by leaving [a seat] empty.”
Second time in 10 months
South Carolina and Virginia are the only states where judges are elected by the Legislature.
The vote against Inzerillo is the second time in 10 months that the S.C. General Assembly rejected a lone candidate to emerge with support from the selection commission. GOP lawmakers opposed Democratic former gubernatorial candidate James Smith for a judgeship in April.
That day, Smith’s 22 years as a state lawmaker and his opposition to anti-abortion bills were held against him, and Democrats were upset about the break from a precedent of electing judicial candidates deemed qualified. Smith’s rejection was a far cry from the bipartisan standing ovation he got at the Statehouse in 2008 after returning from a 16-month deployment to Afghanistan.
Lawmakers dispatched Inzerillo without one word in support, opposition or by way of explanation.
At least the vote against Smith sparked a debate on the floor.
Inzerillo is the type of person any community would be happy to have, especially the legal community. She teaches hands-on trial skills to new public defenders. She is a volunteer judge for middle school mock trial competitions. She has volunteered as a juror for a homeschooling program’s mock trial final. Outside of her day job, she is a member of her church’s finance committee and chair of her church’s Italian festival that raises money for the church each May.
You can assess her character and background, too, by reading the Judicial Merit Selection Commission’s 29 pages of exhibits (her personal data questionnaire, an amendment to it and her sworn candidate statement) and seven pages summarizing the commission’s findings.
Republican state Sen. Wes Climer of Rock Hill told The Herald’s Andrew Dys before the vote that he’d read the background material and that he would not only vote against Inzerillo but that he was actively asking other state senators to do so. Other lawmakers said they wanted to see more choices. (A second candidate had withdrawn before the committee’s consideration.)
“The people of York County are pro-law enforcement and pro-law and order, and Melissa Inzerillo is not,” Climer said. “The sum of Inzerillo’s body of work indicated insufficient concern for the victims of crime.”
Climer said he based his position on the public record from the commission’s review. I was confused because it seemed to me that he could not have misinterpreted that record more.
It seemed to me that Inzerillo said the exact opposite. So I called Climer to talk about it.
Now the process starts over
He said he read between the lines when she listed her five most significant cases and she didn’t focus enough on the victims. He said her comments about victims sounded like every other candidate’s. He told me that candidates’ resumes matter a lot less to him than their ideologies.
“I think Melissa Inzerillo is a wonderful person who should not be a judge,” he said. “And I have grave concerns about the quality of life for the people in York County if she were in charge of sentencing criminals in the 16th Circuit because I lack confidence in her judgment in drawing distinctions when mercy or justice is required.”
Me? I took her words at face value, and I also think the acceptable legal mainstream is much wider than any particular ideology.
“I am not anti-law enforcement, anti-victim, or in favor of letting criminals go free,” Inzerillo flatly told the commission. “I have spoken to victims and understand the hurt, confusion and anger they may have, and I believe that if a person commits a crime they should be punished.”
She added, “Although I work on one side of the system, I would be fair and impartial to any litigant who is before me because I understand everyone in front of a court is hoping for a neutral, detached person to hear the case and judge it fairly.”
And she said, “Almost 25 years ago, a tragedy in my family showed me the hurt that can come through a violent act, and how important closure can be for families if they can get it. I carry these lessons with me every day in my current job, and I would also bring those lessons with me to the bench.”
Inzerillo is the kind of judge the people of York County might actually want: Fair, proven, able to hold prosecutors and defense attorneys to the high standards required of them. But now, instead of having her on the bench, residents will have no resident judge in that seat after one retires on Feb. 14. The vote against her means the process will start over and cases could be delayed.
That the group of lawmakers who decided her fate was only 12.9% women — including just two female state senators (out of 46) and 20 female representatives (out of 124) — shows an inherent problem with the selection process. That more than 1 in 4 of the lawmakers electing judges are lawyers who could appear before them in court shows another. Lawmakers shouldn’t have an outsized role in selecting judges, especially legislator-lawyers with such an inherent conflict.
A new law last year slightly changed the process going forward. It expands the selection commission to three senators, three House members and six civilian lawyers; enacts four-year term limits; boosts the potential candidates per judge’s seat from three to six, and prevents candidates from dropping out after reading any tea leaves but before the commission can evaluate them.
That last change might have made a difference in Inzerillo’s race given that some lawmakers said they opposed her because of a lack of choices (which, needless to say, is out of her control). Then again, those who think she is too liberal might still oppose her (even though she voted in Republican primary elections in 2016, 2018 and 2024, according to public voting records.)
Giving lawmakers so much control over the judges of South Carolina is clearly a flawed system.
On that, Climer and I agree.
“The current system is riven with conflicts of interest and is routinely driven more by politics and in particular by the politics of the handful of people on JMSC than it is by concern for the faithful administration of justice in this state,” Climer said. “I do not have confidence in this system.”
For now, I think Inzerillo should run again when they reopen the race, if she wants, and I think lawmakers should support her candidacy deemed to be qualified in the existing system, because it is the system that we have. Then lawmakers should consider and implement more judicial reforms because if Inzerillo has no chance of being elected, the system isn’t just flawed.
It’s broken.
This story was originally published February 7, 2025 at 6:00 AM with the headline "Women in politics: How a qualified, unopposed female judicial candidate just lost an election in SC."
