Three Justices Reaffirm They Will Hear Election Fight Case Over Colleague's Seat
Attorneys for former U.S. Rep. John Barrow contend that Tuesday's decision by the high court appears to upend its own precedents on two previous recusals by the full bench and runs counter to its previous rulings over trial court judges' failures to recuse.
March 24, 2020 at 06:23 PM
5 minute read
Three justices of the Supreme Court of Georgia reaffirmed Tuesday that the entire bench will not step away from an election fight over Justice Keith Blackwell's seat.
It took Chief Justice Harold Melton, Presiding Justice David Nahmias and Justice Sarah Warren less than four hours to rule that they will not recuse from hearing appeals by former U.S. Rep. John Barrow and former state Rep. Beth Beskin, whose efforts to run for Blackwell's post have been thwarted by the state.
The court's remaining justices, including Blackwell, recused on Monday, and five superior court judges have been appointed to replace them.
Barrow's attorneys said Tuesday's decision appears to upend the high court's precedents on two previous recusals by the full bench, runs counter to its previous rulings over trial court judges' failures to recuse, and—absent any explanation or justification from the three justices who didn't recuse—appear at odds with ethical standards governing the appearance of conflicts of interest established by the state Code of Judicial Conduct.
Barrow co-counsel Lester Tate, a former chairman of the state Judicial Qualifications Commission, called out the justices for deciding in less than four hours "to chart a course which runs contrary to 174 years of jurisprudence in this state, and contrary to a decision of a majority of justices on their own court."
"We don't know if they did so individually, or in concert, or what wisdom they might have that no other justice in the history of the state had," Tate said. "We are certainly disappointed that they failed to recognize what most lawyers see as obvious."
The reconsideration motion was filed by Tate and a team of Pope McGlamry attorneys, including former U.S. attorney Michael Moore of the Middle District of Georgia.
Barrow, an Athens attorney, and Beskin, a partner at the Atlanta offices of Freeman Mathis & Gary, are separately challenging the denial of their petitions for writs of mandamus that would compel Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to reopen qualifying and reinstate an election for Blackwell's seat.
Blackwell faced reelection until Feb. 26 when he submitted his resignation to Gov. Brian Kemp. Blackwell's resignation does not take effect until next November—exactly six months after the May 19 election.
Kemp quickly announced plans to appoint Blackwell's replacement, contending the resignation means the seat is currently vacant, even though Blackwell remains active on the bench.
Barrow's lawyers argued that the refusal of three justices to recuse from a case involving a fellow justice upsets precedents set in 1991 and 1999.
"In both cases each and every justice recused, fully understanding that the cases before them required reviewing the status or conduct of someone who worked beside them daily and with whom they jointly sat in judgment of others," Barrow lawyers argued. "These justices recused because to do otherwise created an appearance of impropriety—regardless of whether there was actual impropriety—that would sully any decision that they rendered."
Barrow's lawyers also contended the three justices' decision to hear the challenge over their colleague's seat also is at odds with previous rulings.
"The same rules that apply to Superior Court judges' ability to judge their appearances of impartiality should apply here," Barrow's counsel argued. "To preserve the public's confidence in the impartiality of the decision in this case, Chief Justice Melton, Presiding Justice Nahmias, and Justice Warren should recuse."
Barrow's counsel also called on the three justices to publicly disclose why they did not recuse.
The state judicial conduct code states that judges are subject to disqualification whenever their impartiality might reasonably be questioned or where a judge has a personal bias concerning a party or a party's lawyer or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning a pending matter or proceeding.
"The fact that Justice Blackwell continues to occupy the position of associate justice … alongside the other justices raises the likelihood that their impartiality might be reasonably questioned," Barrow's lawyers argued.
Blackwell has already been subpoenaed as a witness in the increasingly heated legal brawl and has, through the state attorney general, submitted stipulated testimony. Barrow lawyers also contended that sitting justices may be called to testify about their conversations with Blackwell, the governor or his staff or the secretary of state and his staff, regarding his intention to resign.
Correction: This story has been updated to correct who issued the high court's order denying the motion for reconsideration. Chief Justice Harold Melton and Presiding Justice David Nahmias and Justice Sarah Warren each reviewed and denied the motion.
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 AllGeorgia Appeals Court Cancels Hearing in Election Interference Case Against Trump
3 minute readJustice Department Says Fulton County Jail Conditions Violate Detainee Rights
6 minute readSupreme Court Rejects Push to Move Georgia Case Against Ex-Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows
3 minute read3 GOP States Join Paid Sick Leave Movement, Passing Ballot Measures by Wide Margins
5 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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