ATLANTA– A federal judge on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit from a former Democratic congressman running for the Georgia Supreme Court, alleging that a state agency unconstitutionally tried to block him from talking about abortion.
U.S. District Judge Michael Brown ruled that John Barrow lacked standing because Barrow himself chose to release a confidential letter from the Georgia Judicial Qualifications Commission and because his continued public statements show that his speech is not restricted.
Election Day is Tuesday in the nonpartisan battle 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. That decision paved 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.
While the battle has not become as intense as state Supreme Court races in other states, including Wisconsin, the attention and spending is higher than in the state’s historically sleepy judicial campaigns. Kemp and Christian conservative groups are helping Pinson, while groups supporting abortion rights have supported Barrow but offered little help. Kemp’s political group has said it is spending $500,000 on advertising for Pinson.
But Georgia’s ethics rules prohibit candidates from making commitments about how they will rule on issues likely to come before the Supreme Court. A challenge to the Georgia law is pending in a lower state court and could end up before the state Supreme Court.
A May 1 letter from the commission suggested that Barrow may have violated those rules and asked him to bring his advertising and public statements into compliance with commission rules.
That could ultimately lead to sanctions against Barrow, but Brown said the committee was far from imposing a penalty. He wrote that Barrow could have filed his lawsuit over the May 1 letter under seal and avoided criticism from Pinson’s campaign.
“The details of the allegations, the director’s analysis, the instruction that he stop the violations, and his alleged intent to ‘continue to violate the ethics rules’ are all public because of the plaintiff’s actions,” the judge wrote.
However, the publicity has raised the profile of Barrow’s race, likely educating more voters about his position on abortion.
“I think John Barrow has made it clear that he will continue to speak out on the issues he believes are important to the race and that voters will have their say next Tuesday,” his attorney Lester Tate said Thursday.
Tate said Barrow could appeal to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which he said could interpret the law differently, or file a new lawsuit in state court.
Heath Garrett, a spokesman for Pinson, said Barrow has only himself to blame.
“He knowingly violated the legal code of ethics and subsequently filed a frivolous lawsuit as a political stunt,” Garrett said in a statement. “Sad that this makes highly partisan politics more important than an impartial, impartial judge.”
Pinson has refused to talk about any issues. But he 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.
Courtney Veal, executive director of the Judicial Qualifications Commission, told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution that she was pleased with the ruling and “pleased to dedicate our time and attention to the commission’s work in addressing unethical judicial campaign behavior.”