I wish I could agree with Richard Robbins, but I cannot. Contrary to Mr. Robbins' representations in his recent letter to the editor, Barrow v. Raffensperger, was not a complicated case. As the dissent noted, the question was straightforward: can a constitutionally mandated "scheduled election [be canceled] to allow the governor to make an appointment that cannot be made until after the scheduled election. Why?" The most logical reading of this ruling is that the majority put personal partisan priorities and favoritism for a colleague ahead of the law. That kind of ruling, to borrow a phrase, opens the door to the attendant response.

The impropriety of canceling an election under these circumstances is a fairly straightforward matter. Turning logic and language on its head as the majority must do to reach its conclusion makes it difficult to view their ruling as anything other than one in which their partisan slip shows. Worst of all, the impact of this seeming partisan bent calls into question the motivation of each vote in favor of it. A partisan judiciary is one that rewards those who hew the party line—and punishes those who don't. That fact makes it impossible to untangle the motivations of the three replacement judges who lined up behind the three justices who wrongly refused to recuse. The replacements' support of Justice David Nahmias' opinion may be sincere, but the partisan shadow this ruling casts over our judiciary means we cannot take their reasoning at face value.

Mr. Robbins also is not exactly a neutral arbiter in this matter. His firm is staffed with a bevy of outstanding practicing attorneys (including, as I can personally attest, Mr. Robbins), and it no doubt includes some good Democrats. However, with it is overwhelmingly Republican in its top political connections both in the law firm proper and its lobbying affiliate; Gov. Kemp's former top counsel and the co-chairman of his Judicial Nominating Commission are lawyers in the firm, as are former top lawyers for Govs. Nathan Deal and Sonny Perdue, while Gov. Brian Kemp's current top counsel is a former Robbins lawyer. So, the exhortations to respect the authors of this pro-Republican ruling has all the credibility of a press release from the state Republican Party (at least in the view of this Democrat).

Georgia has proudly resisted the morass of partisanship in its judiciary. People of all political stripes have united to fight for and have devoted untold amounts of treasure to protect the political neutrality of our justice system. And it should be said that political partisans—and few thinking folks are not partisan to some degree—are also capable of being outstanding, unbiased jurists. However, this ruling, led as it was by three justices who, by every applicable standard, should have recused, will be viewed as most observers view the U.S. Supreme Court's overtly partisan, outcome-driven ruling in Bush v. Gore: it will tarnish the reputation of the court. The damage may not be permanent, but it will almost assuredly be long-lasting. The court failed to protect the most important jewel of our judicial system: the foundation of nonpartisanship upon which all of our courts must rest their respect. As any good Republican will (rightly) urge, those responsible for damage should bear the cost. The majority who birthed this ruling, sadly, earned their day in infamy.

A. Thomas Stubbs,

Decatur, Georgia