2 judges duel for 1 SC Supreme Court seat

The race for a vacant associate justice seat on the five-member South Carolina Supreme Court has come down to two circuit court judges.

Judge Diane Goodstein, 61, of Dorchester County, is vying with Judge George “Buck” James, 56, of Sumter County. Goodstein has been a judge for 19 years; James, for 11 years.

The two are the only contenders after Judge Keith Kelly dropped out of the justice race last week. The election in the General Assembly is Wednesday. The winner will get a slight salary bump – an associate justice’s annual salary is $144,111; a judge’s salary is $136,905.

Both candidates declined interviews with The State, but both indicated they were enthusiastic about their chances.

The voters who will choose the next associate justice are the 170 members of the S.C. General Assembly. South Carolina is one of the few states in the nation where legislators select state judges and justices.

Traditionally, judicial candidates work quietly to secure “pledges,” or promises of a vote, from lawmakers. At some point as the election nears, one candidate often emerges with a decided majority of secured pledges from the 170 lawmakers. Then, the other candidate or candidates drop out, leaving one person elected by acclamation.

However, the process of gathering vote pledges is carried out secretly by the candidates and their supporters. Occasionally, it is not clear that any candidate has a clear majority and lawmakers must vote to see who the winner is. A senator’s vote counts the same as a House member’s.

Sen. Shane Massey, R-Edgefield, said while he believed both Goodstein and James were excellent, he supported James because he thinks James would have more of a conservative, “restrained approach” to interpreting the law and S.C. Constitution than Goodstein.

Rep. Todd Rutherford, D-Richland, said he was for Goodstein not only because she has nearly twice as much experience as James. “I’ve seen her on the bench handling pleas and in trials, and her knowledge and understanding of the plight of lawyers in this state, leads me to believe she’s the best person to be on the Supreme Court.”

Rep. Peter McCoy, R-Charleston, called Goodstein “a fantastic, fair judge – very good on criminal issues, trustworthy, easy to work with, and has been on the bench a long time, and that experience will serve her well. Her temperament is fantastic.”

Sen. John Courson, R-Richland, said he was voting for James.

But, said Courson, he wished he had had the chance to vote for two other candidates who were found qualified, but not nominated as candidates in the current race. Those two are Columbia lawyers John Nichols and Matthew Richardson, both of whom recently won or favorably settled high-profile, complex legal cases.

Originally, Administrative Law Chief Judge Ralph King “Tripp” Anderson III, 57, was expected to be a front-runner.

Last fall, the Judicial Merit Selection Commission, whose job is to qualify and nominate three candidates for the associate justice post, named Anderson as one of the three official candidates, along with James and Goodstein.

However, in December, in a little-publicized move, the commission, while still finding Anderson “qualified,” removed him from its list of official nominees and substituted Judge Kelly.

The reason, according to a transcript of commission proceedings, was that Anderson had attended a political gathering after being found “qualified and nominated.” In the world of judicial ethics, judges are supposed to be impartial and stay away from political events.

Anderson declined to comment.

In an interview last week, state Sen. Chip Campsen, R-Charleston, commission chairman at the time, said Anderson had attended a Senate Democratic Caucus meeting.

Once Anderson had committed the “slip-up” of attending a political event, “it was something that we had to take into account. Judicial ethics do not permit candidates or judges to attend political gatherings,” Campsen said.

Campsen said it pained commission members to remove Anderson from the race. “We reported him out initially, but if you are in a very competitive race, and if you stumble just the slightest bit, it can make a difference. It would not have been fair to the other candidates if it had not made a difference.”

This story was originally published January 27, 2017 at 7:24 PM with the headline "2 judges duel for 1 SC Supreme Court seat."