Could one person serve as both a South Carolina master in equity and municipal judge?

Plain-English summary

The governor's appointments director asked whether one person could serve as a master in equity and a municipal court judge. The Attorney General said no. Earlier AG opinions had classified each position as a public office, so holding both at once would violate the state constitutional dual office holding rule.

The letter used the constitutional test for public offices and the prior classifications. It did not discuss a particular appointment, vacancy consequence or exception beyond those stated in the constitutional provision.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1998. 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

Q: Was a master in equity an office under the AG's analysis?
A: Yes. The letter relied on an earlier AG opinion classifying it as an office.

Q: Did a municipal judgeship also count?
A: Yes. A separate earlier AG opinion had classified that post as an office too.

Q: Could the same person hold both posts?
A: The 1998 letter said simultaneous service would violate the state constitution.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion applied Article XVII, Section IA of the state constitution, which prohibited holding two offices of honor or profit at the same time, to the two judicial posts.

Citations and references

• Article XVII, Section IA of the State Constitution, quoted in the letter.

Official title

Asking whether an individual may simultaneously serve as a Master-in-Equity and as a municipal court judge without violating the dual office holding prohibitions of the South Carolina Constitution.

Requester

Gene Beckman, Director of Appointments, Office of the Governor

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/may-7-1998-1/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/98may7beckman.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES MOLONY CONDON
ATIORNEY GENERAL

May 7, 1998

Gene Beckman, Director of Appointments
Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 11369
Columbia, South Carolina 29211
Re:

Informal Opinion

Dear Mr. Beckman:
You have asked whether an individual may simultaneously serve as a Master-inEquity and as a municipal court judge without violating the dual office holding prohibitions of the South Carolina Constitution. Article XVII, Section IA of the State Constitution provides that "no person may hold two offices of honor or profit at the same tin1e .. ., " with exceptions specified for an officer in the militia, member of a lawfully and regularly organized fire department, constable, or notary public. For this provision to be contravened, a person concurrently must hold two public offices which have duties involving an exercise of some portion of the sovereign power of the State. Sanders v. Belue, 78 S.C. 171, 58 S.E. 762 (1907). Other relevant considerations are whether statutes, or other such authority, establish the position, prescribe its duties or salary, or require qualifications or an oath for the position. State v. Crenshaw, 274 S.C. 475, 266 S.E.2d 61 (1980). This office has previously concluded that the position of Master-in-Equity would be considered an office for dual office holding purposes. Op. Atty. Gen. dated June 5, 1981. This Office has also concluded that the position of municipal court judge would be considered an office for dual office holding purposes. Op. Atty. Gen. dated September 9, I 991. Therefore, it must be concluded that one who would simultaneously serve as a Master-in-Equity and as a municipal court judge would violate the dual office holding prohibitions of the state Constitution.

la:;:::;"~;;:_, O""' BO> 11549

•

Cm."""''· S.C 29211 15'9

•

TELEl'llONE :

803-734-3970

•

FACSIMILE: 803-253-6283

Mr. Beckman
Page 2
May 7, 1998
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. With kindest regards, I remain

[

I

I

~

Very truly yours,

8// (,I

Paul M. Koch
Assistant Attorney General