What restrictions did a South Carolina state employee face when seeking a family court judgeship in 1995?

Plain-English summary

In March 1995, the South Carolina Department of Social Services asked what rules beyond the Ethics Reform Act might affect a state employee seeking election as a family court judge. Assistant Attorney General Patricia Petway identified three considerations: leave for campaigning during normal work hours, the statutory judicial screening process and its restriction on seeking legislative pledges, and professional-conduct issues if the employee appeared before a judge who was a campaign opponent. She offered the AG office's past use of lunch hours and annual leave as an example, not a blanket ruling on every employee's situation.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1995. 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.

Historical summary

State employees and employers

The letter said state-employee leave rules were the distinctive consideration when campaign activities would fall during working hours. It described past AG office candidates campaigning at lunch or using annual leave outside lunch hours.

Judicial candidates

The letter identified the judicial screening statute's temporary restriction on asking legislators for pledges before the screening committee determined candidate qualifications. It distinguished an announcement of candidacy and statements about qualifications, which the cited provision exempted. It also flagged professional-conduct rules if the employee's work placed the candidate before a competing family court judge.

Common questions

Did the letter say a state employee could never seek a family court judgeship? No. It identified rules and circumstances requiring attention, without declaring a general candidacy prohibition.

Could a candidate seek pledges from legislators before judicial screening ended? The cited 1995 statute prohibited directly or indirectly seeking such pledges until the screening committee determined all candidates' qualifications for that office.

Did the pledge rule bar announcing candidacy?
No. The letter quoted an exception for the candidate's announcement and statements detailing qualifications.

Background and statutory framework

The requester expressly excluded the Ethics Reform Act from the question. The letter identified employee leave provisions, judicial screening under §2-19-10 et seq., the pledge restriction in §2-19-70, and the Rules of Professional Conduct. It did not resolve a particular employment or courtroom conflict.

Citations and references

• §2-19-70: 1995 restriction on legislative pledges during judicial screening.
• Rules of Professional Conduct: identified as a consideration if a candidate appeared before a rival judge.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/march-1-1995/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/1995mar1butcher.pdf

Original opinion text

T. TRAVIS MEDLOCK

REMBERT C. DENNIS BUil.DiNO
POST Oft1CB BOX JIS49
COWMBIA. S.C. 2921 l-IS49
TEl..EPllONI!: 803-734-3970
FACSIMILE: 803-253-&83

ATTORNEY GENERAL

March 1, 1995 ·

Janet T. Butcher, Esquire
General Counsel
South Carolina Department of
Social Services
Post Office Box 1520
Columbia, South Carolina 29202
RE: Informal Opinion
Dear Ms. Butcher:
Thank you for your letter of February 16, 1995, concerning any statutes, rules, or regulations, other than the Ethics Reform Act, which might be applicable to a state employee's offering for election as a family court judge. The only state law or regulation of which I am aware which would be unique to state employees contemplating such action would be those statutes and regulations concerning the taking of annual leave while the state employee would be conducting activities related to campaigning for the judgeship, if such activities should be undertaken during times when the employee would normally be at work. State employees within the Office of the Attorney General who have offered for judgeships have conducted campaigning activities during lunch hours or have taken annual leave for campaigning conducted at times other than lunch hours, to give you one example of how such may be accomplished. Another statutory consideration would be the requirements of S. C. Code §2-19-10 et seq., concerning the legislative screening process for candidates for judicial office, though those statutes are not unique to state employees. Of particular importance would be §2-19-70, which statute prohibits the direct or indirect seeking of pledges of members of the General Assembly until the qualifications of all candidates for that office have been

Ms. Butcher
Page 2
March 1, 1995
determined by the judicial screening committee, as well as the offer of a pledge of a member of the General Assembly until the qualifications of candidates have been so determined. The prohibitions of the statute "do not extend to an announcement of candidacy by the candidate and statements by the candidate detailing the candidate's qualifications."

(

I
I

One other consideration would be the possibility of the state employee's appearing before a family court judge against whom he or she would be running. If that should be the circumstance under which the campaign would be conducted, the Rules of Professional Conduct would require consideration. I trust that the foregoing has adequately responded to your inquiry. If you should need additional assistance, please do not hesitate to ask. With kindest regards, I am Sincerely,

I

l.fJaw.iU0 JJ /6~
Patricia D. Petway
Assistant Attorney General