It’s time for more changes to reduce legislators’ influence over judges
By John Crangle
On March 19, 1990, S.C. Rep. “Tee” Ferguson took a bribe from Ron Cobb, a Statehouse lobbyist and undercover FBI agent, while Ferguson ran for an open judicial seat in South Carolina. A month later, Ferguson was elected without opposition and while actually sitting in the S.C. House and voting for himself.
Ferguson was elected in spite of testimony given to the ineffective Judicial Committee that he had a reputation for violence and bad temper.
One of his colleagues, Rep. Lanny Littlejohn, R-Pacolet, said then that Ferguson was elected because he was in the House and had an unfair advantage over non-legislator candidates.
Rep. Alf McGinnis, D-Duncan, added, “It is totally political …”
A few days after his election to the bench, Ferguson met again with Cobb, who since 1989 had been working as an FBI sting agent, and took another bribe on May 9, 1990, of $1,000.
Ferguson was sworn in as judge later that month; 300 onlookers gave him a standing ovation.
In March 1991, a federal grand jury in Columbia indicted him on charges of extortion conspiracy and extortion. Ferguson was also indicted for conspiracy to possess cocaine and five counts of cocaine possession.
But even before Ferguson was indicted, it became known that he was under federal investigation for corruption.
Judge Ferguson went to trial in U.S. District Court in Columbia on May 28, 1991, and was convicted 10 days later of conspiracy to violate the Hobbs Act.
Later that summer, he pleaded guilty to three counts of possessing cocaine and found liable on a no-contest plea on other cocaine charges. Evidence indicated that Ferguson had used cocaine in 1988 and 1989 with lobbyists and legislators at the Town House Hotel in Columbia during legislative sessions. He resigned from the judiciary the next week.
Ferguson was sentenced to federal prison in August 1992 for 33 months and taken into custody that October.
It wasn’t until Sept. 20, 1993, that the state Supreme Court finally issued a public reprimand — the only penalty available since he’d resigned.
U.S. Attorney John Barton said of Ferguson: “How such a corrupt drug abuser got elected to the Legislature to begin with is beyond my comprehension. And then to have risen in the esteem of his peers to the point where he got elected to circuit court judge speaks sadly many volumes about the way government was conducted in South Carolina.”
Barton also said he had evidence that Ferguson intended to take bribes as a judge.
At the time, Ferguson was said to be the first state circuit court judge in South Carolina history to be convicted of a serious crime. (However, in 1994, Family Court Judge Sam Mendenhall pleaded guilty to misconduct for exchanging sex for a favorable child custody ruling.)
Ferguson’s convictions added to scandals at the Statehouse which eventually convicted 17 legislators, two executive officials, and seven lobbyists in Operation Lost Trust.
Then-Gov. Carroll Cambell complained bitterly about lawyer-legislators.
Reformers felt that drastic changes were needed for lobbying, ethics, campaign finance and judicial selection laws to clean up the ruins of state government left behind after so many state officials had been convicted for corruption and drugs and thrown out of office and into federal prison.
Lt. Gov. Nick Theodore and Secretary of State Jim Miles, in 1991, appointed a commission — including me — to investigate the judicial selection system in South Carolina and make recommendations for improvements.
That commission recommended banning sitting legislators from seeking judicial office and creating a panel to review and screen candidates for the trial and appellate court benches.
The resulting Judicial Merit Selection Commission began operations in 1997, and a ban on sitting legislators running for judgeship was enacted.
After more than a quarter century, the Legislature is now considering improving and modernizing the 10-member screening panel.
One of the main issues is whether practicing lawyer-legislators, especially the six on the panel, have serious conflicts of interest and too much power over not only the selection of judges but also over what those judges do in cases tried before them by those same lawyer-legislators who elect them.
There is no question, in my opinion, that practicing lawyer-legislators — especially those who screen judicial candidates — have too much influence over state court judges and get favors.
There is now an opportunity to improve the selection process and also upgrade the quality of county magistrates.
The Legislature should not fail to pass comprehensive judicial reform laws which would assure that all state and local judges are competent, honest, and unbiased.
No one who appears in our courts should have any reason to fear that the judge on the bench is handing out favors to opposing lawyer-legislators because the judge fears retaliation the next time he or she is up for re-election before the General Assembly.
John Crangle is a graduate of the University of South Carolina School of Law and member of the South Carolina Bar. He was a member of a commission appointed in 1991 that proposed ways to improve the selection of judges. Approved changes included a ban on sitting legislators voting for themselves for judicial positions and the creation of a Judicial Merit Selection Commission to screen judicial candidates. He also participated in reforming the magistrate system. Changes effective in 1996 included requiring new magistrates to have a four-year college degree and pass a course in the basic laws magistrates enforce.
