Judicial ethics panel says Jordan, Rankin likely violated rules in state Supreme Court campaigns

A state agency responsible for overseeing complaints of judicial misconduct says that two Democratic-backed candidates seeking to oust Republican-appointed state Supreme Court justices violated judicial ethics rules during their campaigns.

A special committee within the state Judicial Qualifications Commission released two public statements Sunday, just days before the election, declaring that it “reasonably believes” former Democratic state Sen. Jen Jordan and personal injury attorney Miracle Rankin defied Georgia’s Code of Judicial Conduct by publicly endorsing each other. 

Georgia Supreme Court candidates are running in a nonpartisan race. But it doesn’t feel like it.

They also appeared at reproductive freedom events and conveyed that they would restore abortion rights, the committee said, in violation of a rule prohibiting judges and judicial candidates from making statements about issues that are likely to come before the court. A legal challenge to Georgia’s six-week abortion ban is still pending and will likely come back  to the state Supreme Court.

The complaints could now be referred to a full investigative panel, the committee said, and could result in sanctions or disciplinary action. The public statements from the commission also allow a lawsuit that Rankin and Jordan filed under seal to be made public. The lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in May, came as a response to letters from the commission notifying them that complaints had been filed against both candidates.

Both candidates are challenging incumbent justices in nonpartisan elections Tuesday. Unlike other races, where the primary winners advance to the November general election, these two races will be decided by the outcome of Tuesday’s election. 

Rankin and Jordan both condemned the move, arguing that the Judicial Qualifications Commission’s decision infringes upon their right to freedom of speech.

“They have chosen to attack my campaign because my message is resonating with voters — that judges should serve all Georgians without fear or favor,” Rankin said in a statement. “I trust that Georgians will see this for what it is and continue to exercise your right to elect who you would like to serve on your Supreme Court.”

Jordan added that abortion rights and women’s health were topics that voters cared deeply about, and that they deserved transparency about where she stood on those issues.

“The JQC’s attempts to silence me, and other challengers, past and present, are not only unconstitutional, but a purely political move to keep voters in the dark,” she said. “My speech is absolutely protected by the First Amendment and is absolutely necessary for voters to be able to make an informed decision.”

Other state Supreme Court challengers have faced similar rulings from the commission. John Barrow, a former Democratic congressman whose state Supreme Court campaign largely centered around protecting reproductive rights, filed a lawsuit in 2024 after receiving a letter stating that his campaign conduct may have violated similar judicial ethics rules.

Quinn Yeargain, a professor who teaches constitutional law at Michigan State University and attended law school at Emory University, said that judicial candidates often have to walk a fine line between informing voters about their values and pledging to serve as an impartial member of the judiciary.

“If the goal of having elections is to have democratic input, then the input has to be based on something,” Yeargain said. “If voters aren’t given adequate information, then they’re making uninformed guesses.”

However, Yeargain added, states do not always establish clear guidelines for candidates to follow, and the rules can be very nuanced.

“[Judicial] candidates aren’t able to say how they would rule on something, but they’re able to speak at a higher level about what they believe, what their values are, and so on and so forth,” Yeargain said. “Believing, for example, that there’s a right to abortion is very different than saying ‘I would, as a matter of law, find that there is in the Georgia Constitution a right to abortion.’”