South Carolina GOP Governor Runoff Intensifies Over 2024 Richland County Judgeship
The South Carolina Republican gubernatorial runoff is heating up as Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette and Attorney General Alan Wilson lock horns over a 2024 Richland County judgeship. The two will meet on June 23 to decide who will carry the GOP nomination into the November 3, 2026 gubernatorial election, according to the Associated Press.
The dispute centers on Wilson’s brief support for James Smith, the 2018 Democratic nominee for governor, during the 2024 Richland County circuit court race. The judgeship, originally slated for February, was pushed to April. Two candidates entered: Justin Williams, a member of the Public Service Commission, and Smith. Williams withdrew in January after it became clear he lacked sufficient votes. Republicans opposed Smith because he had been endorsed by Planned Parenthood during his 2018 gubernatorial campaign—a stance that conflicted with South Carolina’s anti‑abortion position after the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling. The General Assembly rejected Smith and reopened the application process for the judgeship.
Wilson’s campaign says he only made two phone calls to Smith. The attorney general has long advocated judicial reform, arguing that all members of the judicial merit selection commission should be appointed by the governor while the General Assembly retains the power to elect judges. Under this proposal, a constitutional amendment would not be required.
Evette’s surrogates have turned up the heat on Wilson for his support of Smith. At a news conference, state Rep. Melissa Oremus, R‑Aiken, said, “When I found out what this man stood for, I was flabbergasted. And I could not believe somebody that stood for pro‑life issues or claimed to would advocate for such a horrible human being that is completely opposite of who I am and what I stand for.” Her words echo a broader GOP narrative that Wilson’s past endorsements betray his current platform.
Both candidates have distinct judicial‑reform visions. Evette wants the governor to appoint judges with confirmation by the General Assembly, a change that would require a state‑constitution amendment. Wilson’s deputy campaign manager, Claire Brady, countered, “Wilson led the charge on judicial reform for years. Smith met the legal qualifications to serve on the bench and was a safer alternative to the other candidate who was also a Democrat. It is a prime example of why Wilson has fought to reform the system: the legislature only advanced two candidates to be considered—both Democrats. We would have appreciated Pam’s legislators support for judicial reform years ago.”
The Wilson campaign’s description of Williams as a Democrat sparked pushback from Evette’s camp. A review of Williams’ voting history shows that since 2010 he voted on Democratic ballots in five primaries and on Republican ballots in three primaries, according to records from the South Carolina Election Commission. Williams, who serves on the Public Service Commission, has described himself as a moderate and declined comment for this story.
The Wilson campaign declined to further comment. In a statement, Evette campaign manager Megan Finnern wrote, “Alan Wilson is trying to rewrite history. Like a typical career politician, in his rush to justify and quickly dismiss his the fact that he lobbied for his friend—a liberal, pro‑planned parenthood, pro‑transgender Democrat—James Smith for a judgeship in 2024, he got caught in a lie.” The exchange underscores how the judgeship controversy has become a proxy battleground for broader ideological battles.
With the runoff on the horizon, voters in South Carolina will weigh the candidates’ judicial‑reform proposals and their recent political clashes as the campaign season intensifies. The outcome will not only decide the GOP nominee but could also shape the state’s approach to judicial appointments for years to come.
