What’s Really Going On With the SC Supreme Court (Part 2)
The Withdrawal That Changed Everything (And What Happens Now)
If you’re just jumping in, head back to Part 1 of this story, because what happened next only makes sense with context.
The vote to decide who would hold a seat on the South Carolina Supreme Court was scheduled for March 4, 2026. On March 3, Justice John Cannon Few announced that he was withdrawing his re-election bid.
In a brief statement, he explained that it had become clear he did not have the votes to be reelected.
“It has become clear to me over recent weeks that I do not — and will not — have the votes to be reelected to the Supreme Court of South Carolina,” Few wrote in a statement. “I accept this reality with only the most positive thoughts and feelings about what the future holds. I take pride in everything I have done over my 26 years of judicial service; no regrets.”
The Moment Everything Shifted
That single sentence marked a historic moment. While it’s not uncommon for judicial candidates in South Carolina to step aside when they know they don’t have the support to win, this has never happened with a sitting Supreme Court justice in modern history. For the first time, an incumbent chose to withdraw rather than face a likely public defeat.
The decision didn’t happen in a vacuum. The race had become increasingly political, with some lawmakers criticizing Few’s role in a 2023 decision involving abortion law, and others rallying behind his challengers, particularly former Republican House Speaker Jay Lucas. Behind the scenes, as is often the case in South Carolina’s judicial elections, the outcome was being shaped by internal vote counts long before any official ballots were cast.
This is one of the less visible but most important realities of the system: by the time the General Assembly gathers for a joint vote, the decision is often already made. Candidates and lawmakers know where the votes are.
Still, this moment stood out. Even Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey acknowledged the stakes, warning that replacing a sitting justice with a political figure who had never served as a judge could have broader consequences for both the judiciary and the legislature itself. In the end, Few’s withdrawal effectively prevented that confrontation from playing out on the floor, but also exposed just how much of this process happens out of public view.
A Reset Button on the Entire Process
His decision didn’t just end a race; it reset the entire process.
Under South Carolina law, when an incumbent judge withdraws, the seat is treated as vacant and the selection process begins again. That means the application window is expected to reopen, allowing previous candidates to reapply and new candidates to enter the race.
It also changes the dynamics entirely. If you were a potential candidate who assumed an incumbent would be reelected, you might not have applied the first time. Now, with the seat wide open, that calculation could shift.
The question now is timing. Justice Few’s term is set to expire on July 31, 2026 but he can remain on the bench until a replacement is elected. Because the screening and selection process takes months, and because the legislative session is already nearing its end in early May, there isn’t enough time to complete a new election before the end of this legislative session.
The most likely path is that the Judicial Merit Selection Commission will restart the process later in 2026, conduct screenings in the fall, and send a new slate of candidates to the General Assembly for a vote in early 2027. As of now, though, the exact timeline remains uncertain.
The Push for Judicial Reform
At the same time, this moment has added new urgency to a conversation that has been building for years: judicial reform. Lawmakers have been debating changes to the selection process, and one of the most significant proposals this session is House Bill 4755. The bill would restructure the Judicial Merit Selection Commission by removing legislators from the panel and giving the governor authority to appoint all of its members. It would also change how candidates are evaluated and limit the factors the commission can consider.
Supporters argue that these changes would increase transparency and reduce legislative control over the process. Critics, however, raise concerns about shifting power in a different direction and about what is lost when considerations like diversity are explicitly removed from the evaluation process. The bill has already passed the House and now moves to the Senate, where its future remains to be seen.
The Bigger Picture
It would be easy to frame this entire situation as a story about one justice and one election, but that would miss the bigger picture. What we’re seeing right now is a moment of tension around how power is exercised in South Carolina: who gets to decide, how those decisions are made, and what that means for the institutions we rely on. The choices being made in this legislative session, both about who sits on the bench and how they get there, will shape the state’s courts for years to come.
And those courts, in turn, will shape the conditions of everyday life in South Carolina.
If there’s a takeaway from all of this, it’s that the judicial system is not separate from the rest of our civic life: it’s deeply connected to it. When the process becomes closely tied to political relationships and internal negotiations, it raises real questions about fairness, transparency, and public trust.
This story isn’t over. In fact, it’s just entering its next phase.
We’ll be back with Part 3, where we take a closer look at judicial reform, what’s moving at the State House, and what it could mean for the future of South Carolina’s courts.
Stay tuned!
Be The Ones is a nonpartisan grassroots organization building healthier communities, a more equitable democracy, and expanding power by removing barriers to local civic participation across the South Carolina.
