ATLANTA – A federal judge on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit filed by a former Democratic congressman running for the Georgia Supreme Court who claimed a state agency was unconstitutionally trying to block him from speaking out about abortion.
U.S. District Judge Michael Brown ruled that John Barrow did not have standing to sue because Barrow himself chose to release a confidential letter from the Georgia Judicial Qualifications Commission and because his continued public statements show that his speech is not being restricted.
Election Day is Tuesday in the nonpartisan race between Barrow and Judge Andrew Pinson, who was appointed to the nine-judge court in 2022 by Republican Gov. Brian Kemp. Sitting judges in Georgia almost never lose or face serious challenges. The other three judges seeking new six-year terms are unopposed.
Facing this uphill battle, Barrow has made abortion the centerpiece of his campaign, saying he believes Georgia’s state constitution guarantees a right to abortion that is at least as strong as Roe v. Wade. Wade was before it was overturned in 2022. That ruling paved the way for a 2019 Georgia law to go into effect banning most abortions after fetal heart activity is detected, usually around the sixth week of pregnancy. This is before many women know they are pregnant.
While the fight has not become as intense as high court fights in other states, including Wisconsin, the attention and spending is greater than in the state’s historically sleepy judicial campaigns. Kemp and conservative Christian groups are helping Pinson, while groups supporting abortion rights have supported Barrow but provided little help. Kemp’s political group said it is spending $500,000 on advertising for Pinson.
But Georgia’s judicial ethics rules prevent candidates from making commitments about how they will rule on issues likely to come before the high court. A challenge to the Georgia law is pending in a state trial court and could be brought before the state Supreme Court.
A May 1 letter from the commission suggested that Barrow may have violated those rules and requested that he bring his announcements and public statements in line with the commission’s rules.
That could eventually lead to sanctions against Barrow, but Brown said the commission was far from issuing a punishment. He wrote that Barrow could have filed his lawsuit under seal about the May 1 letter and avoided criticism from the Pinson campaign.
“The details of the allegations, the director’s analysis, the director’s instruction to stop the violations, and his alleged intention to ‘continue violating ethics rules’ are all publicly disclosed because of the complainant’s actions,” the judge wrote.
The publicity, however, raised the profile of Barrow’s race, likely informing more voters about his stance on abortion.
“I think John Barrow has made it clear that he will continue to speak out on the issues he believes are important to the race and voters will have their say next Tuesday,” his lawyer, Lester Tate, said Thursday.
Tate said Barrow could appeal to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which he said could interpret the law differently, or file a new case in state court.
Heath Garrett, Pinson’s spokesman, said Barrow is solely to blame.
“He knowingly and willfully violated the judicial code of ethics and then filed a frivolous lawsuit as a political stunt,” Garrett said in a statement. “It’s sad that this puts hyperpartisan politics ahead of an impartial, nonpartisan judge.”
Pinson declined to talk about the problems. But he warned in an interview with the Associated Press in April that making legal disputes conventionally political will destroy people’s belief that the courts are fair and impartial.
Courtney Veal, executive director of the Judicial Qualifications Commission, told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution she was pleased with the decision and “happy to return our time and focus to the commission’s work in addressing unethical judicial campaign conduct.”
This story originally appeared on ABCNews.go.com read the full story
