Two incumbent justices on Georgia’s Supreme Court survived Democratic-backed challengers during the May nonpartisan election. Pictured clockwise from the top left: Presiding Justice Sarah Warren, former state Sen. Jen Jordan, attorney Miracle Rankin and Justice Charlie Bethel. File photos.
Georgia Democrats had high hopes of tipping the balance on the state’s highest court in February, when two candidates announced they would be challenging a pair of sitting justices during the state’s nonpartisan elections in May.
But despite $8 million in spending from the Democratic Party of Georgia to unseat the two state Supreme Court justices and record early voter turnout in which Democratic voters surpassed Republicans, both incumbent justices managed to hold onto their seats.
Presiding Justice Sarah Warren received nearly 60% of the vote in the race for her seat, according to unofficial results from the secretary of state’s office, while justice and former Republican state Sen. Charlie Bethel finished with roughly 51%.
Jordan, a former Democratic state senator who was challenging Warren, received a majority of the votes in just three counties: Fulton, DeKalb and Clarke. Rankin, a personal injury attorney who was challenging Bethel, received majorities in 15 additional counties throughout the state.
Justices serve six-year terms and are often first appointed by governors in order to fill a vacancy on the bench. Eight of the nine justices who are currently serving on the state Supreme Court were appointed by Republican governors.
Both Bethel and Warren were appointed by former Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal, a Republican. A third incumbent justice, who was running unopposed, was appointed to the court by Republican Gov. Brian Kemp last year.
Challengers, historically, have not had much luck in Georgia either. No candidate has ever managed to oust a sitting state Supreme Court justice under Georgia’s current constitution, which has been in effect since 1983 and changed judicial elections to nonpartisan contests. The last time an incumbent state Supreme Court justice lost a bid for re-election was in 1922.
Still, the Democratic Party of Georgia said the competitive race shows that there is momentum for liberal candidates going into the general election, even if Rankin and Jordan came up short last month.
“This close result — alongside the record-breaking Democratic turnout we saw on May 19th — speaks to an electorate that is more fired up than ever to elect Democrats at every level of the ticket,” said party chair Charlie Bailey. “Georgia Democrats’ aggressive operation in these down-ballot races reflects a party that is stronger than ever, on the offense and ready to fight like hell all the way through November.”
Jason Shepherd, a political science professor at Kennesaw State University and the former Cobb County GOP chair, said Republicans can also draw some lessons from the turnout.
“It’s important for Republicans not to take these nonpartisan positions for granted,” he said, arguing that there was no effort from party leaders to notify voters about the race. The large number of ballot questions could potentially have kept Republican voters from making it to the nonpartisan section of the ballot, he added.
“In the future, Democrats may readjust their strategy, but the Republican Party also has to step up,” he said.
Trey Hood, a political science professor at the University of Georgia, said the nature of judicial races poses a unique challenge for candidates hoping to unseat incumbent justices. The lack of a partisan identifier by candidates’ names makes it hard for voters to glean much about them from looking at the ballot, adding to the natural advantage that incumbent candidates typically have.
“They’re trying to broadcast the message that these are going to be Democratic jurists, but not everyone gets that message,” he said. “The only information on these nonpartisan races that the voters are going to get is who’s the incumbent.”
Concerns about politicization of the judiciary may also have played a role in how voters felt about voting out the two incumbent justices.
Political parties, interest groups and prominent figures on both sides of the aisle played a large role in promoting the race, with figures like former Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Barack Obama endorsing Jordan and Rankin’s campaigns, while Bethel and Warren received Kemp’s endorsement.
Observers have also drawn comparisons to states like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, where political parties, interest groups and outside donors have poured hundreds of millions of dollars to influence judicial races.
“There are a lot of people in this state who reasonably believe that this kind of attack on incumbents is really not a good idea,” said Eric Segall, a professor at Georgia State University College of Law. “If these two [challengers] had won, the next time around the Republican Party would have poured in $8 million — actually, given our current politics, probably $20 million — to unseat incumbents.”
The result could be an escalating cycle of political spending that makes future races more openly partisan.
“Even people on the left with power, I don’t think were totally bought into what was going on here,” Segall added.
Georgia Supreme Court reinstates six-week abortion ban while state appeals
And while Segall said Georgia’s highest court “clearly has a conservative, Republican bend,” it doesn’t have the same reputation as state Supreme Courts in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, a perception that he said is likely by design. Whether that perception changes if the court sides with Republicans on topics like Georgia’s six-week abortion ban and potential redistricting lawsuits, however, remains to be seen.
In 2023, the state Supreme Court sided with the state during what was considered a narrow legal challenge to Georgia’s abortion law. A lawsuit that addresses the constitutionality of Georgia’s six-week abortion ban more directly is currently pending in the state Supreme Court, though the justices ruled to keep the ban in place while the case played out.
“I do think the redistricting and abortion cases — if there are redistricting cases — could very much be the route to change things,” Segall said.
Deputy Editor Ross Williams contributed to this report.
