ATLANTA — A Georgia agency that investigates complaints of ethical misconduct by judges says two candidates for the Georgia Supreme Court may have violated its code of conduct by stating their positions in favor of a woman’s right to abortion.
The Judicial Qualifications Commission, which oversees judicial ethics under state Supreme Court rules, published the notices on its website Monday after sending copies to the two candidates, Jen Jordan and Miracle Rankin, on Sunday night.
That was immediately after an emergency order by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals that blocked a district judge’s pending order to temporarily silence the commission on the grounds that its code might violate the First Amendment rights of candidates.
Jordan is running against Justice Sarah Warren while Rankin is seeking Justice Charlie Bethel’s seat.
The incumbents, Warren and Bethel, first reached the state’s high court through appointment by former Gov. Nathan Deal, a Republican.
Two of the three Eleventh Circuit judges who ruled Sunday in favor of the commission’s release of public statements against the candidates were appointed by President Donald Trump during his first term. The third, who dissented, was appointed by President Joe Biden.
The campaigns of Jordan and Rankin argue that the commission’s action was unconstitutional.
“The JQC has called into question my efforts to educate Georgians about who I am and what I believe, violating my First Amendment right to free speech,” Rankin said in a statement, referring to the commission by its initials.
“Georgians have made it clear that they care deeply about abortion rights and women’s health,” Jordan said in a statement. “It is both my responsibility and my First Amendment right to keep talking about these serious issues that affect every person in our state, because voters deserve the truth.”
The Democratic Party of Georgia’s chairman, Charlie Bailey, called the commission’s disclosures “a cynical attempt by a mere bureaucratic arm of the Georgia Republican establishment” to silence Jordan and Rankin.
The commission’s statements say Jordan and Rankin might have violated a rule against publicly endorsing others’ campaigns, noting they openly supported each other. The statements also say the candidates’ positions on abortion could be a violation of a rule that “prohibits judicial candidates from making statements or promises that commit candidates with respect to issues” that could come before the court.
The Jordan and Rankin campaigns say they plan to seek intervention by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Eleventh Circuit ruling said a district judge’s order that would have prevented the commission from enforcing its code “will irreparably harm the state.”
In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Minnesota Republican Party’s lawsuit against that state’s judicial conduct board when it tried to bar judicial candidates from stating their views on disputed legal and political issues, writing that “avoiding judicial preconceptions on legal issues is neither possible nor desirable” and that pretending otherwise to preserve an appearance of impartiality “can hardly be a compelling state interest either.”