Former U.S. Rep. John Barrow on Monday accused the Supreme Court of Georgia of politically slow-walking a ruling on whether the governor or the voters can select Justice Keith Blackwell's successor.

In a blistering statement, Barrow called on the high court to rule on whether the May 19 election scheduled for Blackwell's seat should have been canceled at Gov. Brian Kemp's request.

"Courts all over the country are able to decide cases like this in a hurry," Barrow said Monday. The Kansas Supreme Court heard oral arguments via Zoom on April 11 over whether the state's governor could address the spread of COVID-19 by banning church services of more than 10 congregants on Easter "and handed down its decision that same afternoon," Barrow said.

"In Wisconsin, they can go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and get a decision back in 48 hours" over whether the deadline for absentee ballots could be extended, Barrow said. "Meanwhile, the Georgia Supreme Court has been sitting on our case for almost two weeks."

Barrow, an Athens attorney, and former state Rep. Beth 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 reinstate an election for Blackwell's seat. The two would-be candidates petitioned the high court after the Georgia Court of Appeals took less than 24 hours to punt the two candidates' emergency appeal to the Supreme Court.

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.

Barrow and his legal team argue that Blackwell's seat isn't vacant, and the governor can't fill his seat by appointment until he actually steps down. Since Blackwell is still doing his job as a justice, if he opted not to seek reelection in May, the post should have been open to other candidates, they contend. But the governor insists Blackwell's seat is vacant because Kemp has accepted his resignation.

Barrow said that briefs were filed two weeks ago and his lawyers, including a team from Pope McGlamry and Lester Tate, a partner at Akin & Tate in Cartersville, have filed three motions. All were decided without delay, including two motions the court denied the same day they were submitted. "And still no decision in the case," Barrow said.

On April 3,  the high court—including five temporary justices for members who recuse—said it would not issue an immediate opinion, but would rather do so "as soon as practicable" after finding the court "could provide adequate remedies" to Barrow and Beskin after absentee ballots were distributed for the May 19 election.

Last Thursday,  Barrow lawyers filed new emergency motions for expedited consideration of their appeal and asked the high court to reconsider its decision not to issue an opinion immediately. Within hours, the court said no.

Barrow also singled out three justices who refused to recuse from the case, even though five of their colleagues, including Blackwell, did. They are Chief Justice Harold Melton and Justices Sarah Warren and David Nahmias. Barrow said that "a lot of lawyers" are concerned the case is being slow-walked by the justices who decided to remain on the case, even though Blackwell is a colleague and still active on the bench.

Barrow said the high court's decision to take a leisurely pace with his appeal places him at a disadvantage as a candidate should the election be restored. "Right now is the time when candidates get to be known by the voters. Now is the time to campaign," he said. "What is the point of an election if you don't have a campaign?"

"There are lots of ways to suppress the vote," he added. "One is to steal an election that belongs to voters and treat it as an appointment. Another is to grudgingly have an election but not let anybody have a campaign."

Attorney Cary Ichter of Atlanta's Ichter Davis, who represents Beskin, said he hopes the time the court is taking "reflects the exceptionally serious nature of the case and the court's recognition of its importance."

"Absent compelling evidence to the contrary, I remain persuaded that the court remains apolitical and that the members of the court understand how critical it is … to remain above the partisan fray," Ichter said.

On Monday, Barrow also moved to recuse Carla Wong McMillian, who was sworn in as the high court's newest justice April 10. Tate said the new recusal motion tracks one that Barrow's counsel filed asking all the justices to step down.

"We have always felt that all of the permanent justices should have recused because they are colleagues of Justice Blackwell," Tate said. That now includes McMillian, who becomes Blackwell's colleague while he remains on the bench through November.

Court spokeswoman Jane Hansen said the court has already responded, unanimously and quickly through its rulings. She did not comment on whether McMillian will recuse.

A spokeswoman for Attorney General Chris Carr, whose staff represents the Secretary of State, declined comment.

Barrow was especially critical of Nahmias, whom he said "is notorious for his attempts to dominate the court."

Barrow said Nahmias, who is the high court's liaison to the state judicial watchdog agency, is violating the state Code of Judicial Conduct by failing to recuse. "He can't be the judge of a case involving a close colleague, and he can't be the judge of his own case" on whether he should recuse, Barrow said. "But that's just what he's doing."

Barrow also accused Nahmias of "trying to manipulate the substitute justices" appointed to replace his five recused colleagues "for the same reason Justice Blackwell and the governor have manipulated the timing of Justice Blackwell's 'retirement'—to control the Georgia Supreme Court."

"I don't know how he can sit in judgment on the conduct of a very close colleague," Barrow added. "A bipartisan majority of the court has seen fit to recuse themselves."

"The Supreme Court in general, and this justice in particular, has read the riot act to other judges in other cases but has failed to follow that law in his own case and failed to give any word or explanation why."