The Dangerous Politicization of Georgia’s Supreme Court

“Fiat justitia ruat caelum.” Those words, a Latin legal maxim, translate into “Let justice be done, though the heavens may fall.” They are also inscribed behind the bench for the Supreme Court of Georgia. 

And did the heavens ever fall on that body during the 2026 election. 

For decades, statewide judicial elections in Georgia have flown under the radar. Incumbents on the state’s highest court rarely face challengers—and they simply don’t lose. One has to look all the way back to 1922, when Richard B. Russell Sr., father and namesake of the state’s longest serving U.S. senator, defeated Chief Justice William Fish. 

To this day, politicos and court historians still reflect on the 2010 election, when Justice David Nahmias was forced into a runoff by a little-known challenger who barely campaigned. 

With 104 years of history against them, Democrats launched what the Atlanta Journal-Constitution labeled an “$8 Million Georgia Supreme Court push.” Their targets were two incumbents, Justice Sarah Warren and Justice Charlie Bethel. A third incumbent, Justice Ben Land, ran unopposed. 

The challengers were Miracle Rankin, an attorney at Morgan & Morgan and former president of the Georgia Association of Black Women Attorneys, and Jen Jordan, a trial lawyer and former state senator. 

Elections to the Supreme Court of Georgia have been nonpartisan since 1983, when the judicial system was modernized during an overhaul of the state constitution. Yet, this race bore all the hallmarks of a partisan battle, complete with high-profile endorsements from former President Barack Obama on one side and Governor Brian Kemp on the other.

The buildup to Election Day also included a public statement by the Judicial Qualifications Commission of Georgia, warning that the challengers’ campaigns likely violated the state’s Code of Judicial Conduct, which prohibits judicial candidates from campaigning together or taking stances on political issues likely to come before the court.

Ultimately, Justice Warren won reelection with 59% of the vote, while Justice Bethel retained his seat with 51%.

While post-election coverage has focused on why one challenger ran so far ahead of the other, a deeper question remains: Do we really want justices who engage in the partisan political process and attempt to legislate from the bench?

Perhaps this is all a natural consequence of the growing politicization of our everyday lives, but it shouldn’t be. 

The danger that comes from transforming our judiciary into a legislative facsimile lies in eroding a system built on the separation of powers. When judges begin to view themselves as lawmakers, they compromise the unique role they are meant to play in our constitutional republic as arbiters of the law. 

Legislators—especially in a state like Georgia, where every member of the General Assembly stands for reelection every two years—are intended to reflect the shifting priorities of their constituents and pass laws accordingly. Justices, on the other hand, are meant to interpret the law, insulated from the routine of politics. They serve six-year terms, not two; their contests are officially nonpartisan.

When justices move beyond applying the law as written to implement personal or partisan agendas, they bypass the democratic process and erode public trust in an impartial judiciary. This not only has consequences for the highest court in the state, but trickles down to the Georgia Court of Appeals, Superior Courts and beyond. 

While “motivating the base” is an undeniable political tool in an election year, the question still remains: Why the focus on winning Georgia Supreme Court seats with a goal to legislate, rather than simply winning legislative ones?

The desire by political parties to target the judiciary is understandable, particularly for a minority party in a state where the majority party controls the executive and legislative branches. But picking off judicial seats in the hopes of legislating from the bench is a short-sighted answer.

Wisconsin, which has become the nation’s bellwether for costly, hyper-politicized judicial races, offers an illuminating warning of the dangers down this path. According to Wisconsin Watch, total spending by candidates and outside groups on just one Wisconsin Supreme Court seat reached a staggering $144.5 million in 2025—a figure higher than the $100.8 million spent on all other state high court contests in the nation in 2021 and 2022 combined.

For perspective, that is roughly $34 million more than the estimated $110 million spent on advertising in the entire Republican primary to become Georgia’s next governor.

Injecting millions of dollars and partisan vitriol into judicial races to affect legislative outcomes doesn’t just erode confidence in the judicial system—it undermines the very separation of powers that keeps our constitutional republic intact.