Former Governor Tells Appeals Court That Judicial Watchdog Appointees Are Illegal
The case is critical to Griffin Circuit Superior Court Judge Robert "Mack" Crawford's future on the bench after a JQC panel recommended he be removed from office for multiple violations of the ethics code.
January 09, 2020 at 06:34 PM
4 minute read
A former Georgia governor told the Georgia Court of Appeals that members of the state's judicial watchdog agency are illegally holding office.
Former Gov. Roy Barnes challenged the legitimacy of the members of the state Judicial Qualifications Commission—which enforces the state Judicial Code of Ethics—arguing the commission's 2018 appointments are invalid because they weren't submitted to the Senate for confirmation until after the legal deadline.
Barnes argued the appeal on behalf of suspended Griffin Circuit Superior Court Judge Robert "Mack" Crawford. The appeal is critical to Crawford's future on the bench after a JQC panel recommended he be removed from office for multiple violations of the ethics code.
Crawford—a former state legislator and former director of the state Public Defender Council—is currently awaiting trial on felony theft charges and violating his oath of office.
If the 2018 appointments are deemed invalid, then the commissioners had no legal authority to bring ethics charges against Crawford or suspend him from the bench.
The Supreme Court of Georgia stayed its decision on whether to accept the JQC's recommendation until Crawford's appeal is handled.
"A law says what it means and means what it says," Barnes argued before Judges Clyde Reese, Carla Wong McMillian and Todd Markle on Thursday. The statute at issue requires that names of JQC appointees "shall be submitted" to the Senate no later than the third Monday in January in order to be eligible for confirmation, he said.
Barnes argues the JQC appointments at issue weren't submitted to the Senate until Jan. 18, 2018—three days after the legal deadline. The former governor referenced the Senate Journal citing the Jan. 18 date as incontrovertible evidence of his claim. The state Constitution has established the journal as "the sole, official record" of Senate proceedings, Barnes said.
"So if the statute means what it says and says what it means, then those who are serving could not lawfully serve on the Judicial Qualifications Commission," Barnes said.
Barnes is seeking to overturn the ruling of a Cobb County Superior Court judge who last year affirmed the legality of the JQC appointments after the commission brought ethics charges against Crawford, suspended him with pay, and then convened a hearing to consider whether additional disciplinary action was warranted.
But JQC director Chuck Boring defended the legality of the judicial watchdog agency's 2018 appointments. Boring said the Senate Journal entry on Jan. 18, 2018, stated that the JQC appointees' names had already been properly submitted when the entry was made. "If you look at the record, the actual memo in the Senate Journal, it doesn't say the names were submitted that day," he argued. "It says, 'They have been submitted.' If it says what it means and means what it says, they have been submitted."
State statute also places responsibility for the timeliness of the submissions on the appointing authorities, he said. "That was key. … The main crux was the action by the appointing authorities, not what the Senate did later." All of the appointees' names were submitted on or before Jan. 14, 2018, he said.
Boring also argued that while the state Constitution mandates that certain legislative actions must be recorded, there is no requirement that JQC confirmations are among them. And he contended that the Senate secretary is a constitutional officer designated to receive documents intended for the Senate. Otherwise, appointing officials would have to appear personally in the Senate to hand out notification of nominations "like kids handing out Valentine's Day cards."
"I'm not saying you have to go in and hand out Valentine's Day cards," Barnes responded after Boring ended his presentation. "You can send it to the lieutenant governor or the [Senate] clerk, although that's not the way I did it. However, it's not presented to the Senate until it appears on the Journal."
Additional Reading:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'A 58-Year-Old Engine That Needs an Overhaul': Judge Wants Traffic Law Amended
3 minute readAppeals Court Removes Fulton DA From Georgia Election Case Against Trump, Others
6 minute readFamily of 'Cop City' Activist Killed by Ga. Troopers Files Federal Lawsuit
5 minute readFulton Judge Rejects Attempt by Trump Campaign Lawyer to Invalidate Guilty Plea in Georgia Election Case
3 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250