Could a South Carolina municipal judge run for county solicitor while still serving as a judge?

Plain-English summary

In 1999, a Mount Pleasant municipal judge was considering a run for Charleston County Solicitor. The town attorney agreed that serving in both offices at once would violate South Carolina's constitutional dual-office rule. He asked the Attorney General's office a narrower question: could the judge run while still acting as a judge?

The assistant attorney general found no statute or constitutional provision that prohibited a municipal judge from offering for elected office. He did not decide whether campaigning would conflict with the Canons of Judicial Conduct. The letter referred that issue to the Advisory Committee on Standards of Judicial Conduct, which could give advice or an advisory opinion. The letter was expressly informal.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1999. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Did the opinion say a municipal judge could hold the solicitor's office at the same time? A: No. The request itself acknowledged that simultaneous service would violate the state constitution's dual-office prohibition. The opinion addressed running for the office while serving as a judge.

Did the AG find a law barring the judge from entering the election? A: The assistant attorney general said he could not locate a statute or constitutional provision that barred the judge from offering for elected office.

Did the opinion clear the campaign under judicial ethics rules? A: No. The office said that interpreting the judicial canons and deciding a possible judicial conflict were outside its jurisdiction. It referred the question to the Advisory Committee on Standards of Judicial Conduct.

Background and statutory framework

The question separated candidacy from simultaneous officeholding. The office gave a limited answer on the statutory and constitutional search, then identified judicial conduct as an unresolved, separate issue. It cited no particular statute, constitutional section, or court case.

Citations and references

The letter identified the state constitution's dual-office prohibition and the Canons of Judicial Conduct without a section citation.

Official title

Regarding dual office holding, whether being a municipal court judge and being Charleston County Solicitor would violate that rule.

Requester

R. Allen Young, Esquire, Town Attorney, Town of Mount Pleasant

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/august-26-1999/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/99aug-26-young.pdf

Original opinion text

rI
'

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES M. CONDON
ATTORNEY GENERAL

August 26, 1999

r

I
I

R. Allen Young
Town Attorney
Town of Mount Pleasant
P.O. Box 745
Mount Pleasant, South Carolina 29465

RE:

Informal Opinion

Dear Mr. Young:
Your opinion request has been forwarded to me for reply. You have informed this Office that a Mount Pleasant municipal court judge is contemplating running for the political office of Charleston County Solicitor. You acknowledge in your request that the dual office holding prohibitions of the state constitution would be violated if the individual were to simultaneously serve in both capacities. Therefore, your question is limited to whether an acting municipal court judge may run for or participate in an election for the office of Charleston County Solicitor. I have not been able to locate any statute or constitutional provision prohibiting a municipal court judge from offering for elected office. However, if a conflict does exist, such may fall within the Canons of Judicial Conduct. The question of whether a member of the judiciary has a conflict of interest is a matter outside the jurisdiction of this Office. Thus, as to any interpretation of the Judicial Canons, I must respectfully refer you to the Advisory Committee on Standards of Judicial Conduct for advice or an advisory opinion. This letter is an informal opinion only. It has been written by a designated assistant attorney general and represents the position of the undersigned attorney as to the specific questions asked. It has not, however, been personally scrutinized by the Attorney General nor officially published in the manner of a formal opinion.

k.t,£111

_;BE~~JJLDING

•

POST OFFICE Box 11549

•

COLUMBIA. S.C 29211-1549

•

TELEPHONE: 803-734-3970

•

FACSIMILE: 803-253-6283

I

J

Mr. Young
Page 2
August 26, 1999

With best personal regards, I am
Sincerely yours,

T:J_// t:~

I
I

ii
L

I

Paul M. Koch
Assistant Attorney General