ATLANTA — A special committee of the Judicial Qualifications Committee says two Supreme Court candidates violated the code of ethics for judges during their campaigns.
That special committee said that because challengers Jen Jordan and Miracle Rankin campaigned on their platforms, they violated the code of ethics.
But an incumbent justice said that’s why the code is there.
The JQC’s ruling was released on Monday only after a secret fight in federal court.
After an unnamed complaint, the committee said it “reasonably believes Ms. Jordan’s (and Ms. Rankin’s) campaign conduct violates Georgia’s Code of Judicial Conduct.
TRENDING STORIES:
- Former Fulton County sergeant accused of punching and slapping handcuffed man, faces federal charges
- Fentanyl bust in Lamborghini ties back to Georgia woman who was supposed to help at-risk youth
- Powerball: $1 million ticket sold at Georgia food mart
It found that Jordan, stating that she will “restore abortion rights if elected,” violated the code section that prohibits judicial candidates from making statements or promises about things that might come before the court.
Channel 2’s Richard Elliot spoke with Jordan on Monday, who questioned the timing of the release, literally a day before the election.
“More than just a little suspicious,” she said.
She said as a candidate, she has to talk about issues or voters won’t know to vote for her, and therefore, she feels she didn’t violate anything.
“As long as we’re not prejudging a case. That it is absolutely appropriate under the First Amendment for us to talk about our beliefs, our experiences, our backgrounds, all the things that then allow a voter to make a decision,” Jordan said.
Jordan is challenging incumbent Justice Sarah Warren.
“I think that fundamentally misunderstands the role of a judge,” Warren said.
Warren points out that this is a nonpartisan race and says justices cannot come onto the bench with an agenda.
“A judge does not campaign on policy promises or agendas, and judges don’t decide legal cases based on personal preferences or their own policy views. Judges decide cases based upon facts in the law that are presented in specific cases,” Warren said.
This special committee ruling is just an opinion. The full JQC would still have to weigh in, and there is no word on when or if that could happen.
©2026 Cox Media Group
