Georgia court candidate sues to block ethics rules so he can keep campaigning on abortion
ATLANTA– A former Democratic congressman running for the Georgia Supreme Court filed a federal lawsuit Monday alleging a state agency is unconstitutionally trying to prevent him from talking about abortion.
John Barrow filed a lawsuit hours before a deadline to respond to a complaint that he is violating the state judiciary’s ethics rules and must bring his campaign ads into compliance with state rules. Among the rules Barrow is violating, according to the Georgia Judicial Qualifications Commission complaint, is one that prohibits candidates from making commitments about how they will rule on issues likely to go before the Supreme Court.
Early voting will take place in the May 21 nonpartisan election between Barrow and Judge Andrew Pinson, who was appointed to the nine-court bench by Republican Gov. Brian Kemp in 2022. Sitting judges in Georgia almost never lose and never face serious challenges. The three other judges who want new six-year terms are not opposed.
Facing that uphill battle, Barrow has made abortion a centerpiece of his campaign, saying he believes Georgia’s state constitution guarantees a right to abortion at least as strong as Roe v. Wade before it was overturned in 2022. The decision cleared the way. that a Georgian law will come into effect in 2019 that will ban most abortions after the fetus’s heart activity can be detected, usually around the sixth week of pregnancy. That’s before many women know they are pregnant.
A challenge to the Georgia law is pending in a lower state court and could end up before the state Supreme Court. Barrow says that when Pinson was Georgia’s attorney general, he was the lawyer most responsible for the state supporting the Mississippi case that led to the U.S. Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade.
Pinson declined to discuss issues but warned in an April interview with The Associated Press that making judicial races conventionally political will destroy people’s faith that courts are fair and impartial.
“If Georgia goes down that path by politicizing these nonpartisan judicial races like that, you’re going to lose,” Pinson said. “I think this damages people’s confidence in an impartial judiciary.”
Barrow says the attempt to muzzle him violates his First Amendment right to freedom of speech and his 14th Amendment right to equal protection under a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that found that Minnesota could not ban candidates from expressing their views on legal and political issues.
“The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that I have a constitutional right to express my opinions on these issues. And that is exactly what the Code of Judicial Conduct says,” Barrow said in a statement on Monday. “That’s because voters have the even more important constitutional right to know what they are voting for.”
Courtney Veal, executive director of the Judicial Qualifications Commission, did not respond to an email seeking comment.
The commission said in the letter to Barrow that its rules do not violate the decision. Instead, the complaint alleges that Barrow went too far, saying he failed to emphasize a judge’s duty to uphold the law and that he “mischaracterized the role of a lawyer as someone who should (or would, in your case) ‘protect’ select rights,’ made commitments on the issue, misrepresented today’s Georgia and gave the false impression that his vote alone could pass abortion laws in the state change.
“Unfortunately, John Barrow has decided to ignore Georgia’s code of ethics,” Pinson spokesman Heath Garrett said in a statement. “His lawsuit makes clear that his goal is to negatively politicize judicial races and destroy Georgians’ confidence in fair and impartial courts.”
Supreme Court races across the country have become much more political in recent decades, creating contests like last year’s in Wisconsin, where a liberal justice backed by Democrats flipped the court after appointing a former justice reports supported by Republicans and anti-abortion groups in the most extreme circumstances. expensive race at the Supreme Court.
Barrow’s campaign is the first sign that a trend could be emerging in Georgia, which has become a battleground in party elections. Many members of the state’s legal establishment view Barrow’s tactics with distaste.
On Monday before Barrow announced his lawsuit, Pinson’s campaign released a statement from five former Supreme Court justices, 12 former state bar association presidents and two former Judicial Qualifications Commission officials, warning that voters should demand ” that our judges are impartial and refrain from making public commitments. about how they will decide cases and issues.
“The alternative is a partisan judiciary that is encouraged to put campaign promises and personal preferences above the Constitution and the law,” the statement said. “The alternative would mean the end of the rule of law, and if our state goes down that path, we fear it will be very difficult to turn back later.”