On Wednesday, May 21, 2025, Shermela J. Williams, Judge of the Superior Court of Fulton County, filed a motion in the Georgia Supreme Court to quash formal charges brought against her by the Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC).
The motion alleges significant ethical breaches by two members of the JQC’s Investigative Panel, Judges Stacey K. Hydrick and Victoria S. Darrisaw, citing their undisclosed financial and personal ties to Williams’s former political opponent, Judge Rebecca Crumrine Reider.
The motion claims that Hydrick and Darrisaw contributed to Reider’s 2020 re-election campaign while failing to disclose these contributions during their involvement in the JQC’s investigation of Williams. According to the filing, Hydrick donated $2,800, the maximum allowable amount, through her campaign entity, “Friends of Judge Hydrick, Inc.,” on March 18, 2020, and Darrisaw contributed $200 on March 7, 2020. These donations were made shortly after Williams announced her candidacy against Reider on March 6, 2020. The motion also highlights Hydrick’s public reference to Reider as her “dear friend” in a November 2018 social media post following Reider’s appointment to the Superior Court by then-Governor Nathan Deal.
Williams’s legal team argues that the failure of Hydrick and Darrisaw to disclose their financial support for Reider and Hydrick’s personal relationship with her created a conflict of interest, violating Rule 1.2(A) of the Georgia Code of Judicial Conduct, which requires judges to maintain public confidence in the judiciary’s impartiality and avoid the appearance of impropriety. The motion contends that these actions compromised the fairness of the disciplinary proceedings against Williams, initiated in early 2022 over allegations of an improper ex parte conversation.
The JQC’s investigation, which spanned over two years, culminated in formal charges filed against Williams in June 2024. The motion asserts that Hydrick and Darrisaw, as chair and vice chair of the Investigative Panel, played significant roles in authorizing the investigation and charges without disclosing their ties to Reider. It further notes that some witnesses involved in the case against Williams were reportedly friends or supporters of Hydrick, adding to the alleged bias.
Citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc. (2009), the motion argues that the contributions and undisclosed relationships create a “probability of bias” that violates Williams’s due process rights under both the Georgia and U.S. Constitutions. The Caperton decision established that significant campaign contributions to a judge can necessitate recusal when they create a risk of bias. Williams’s attorneys contend that the same principle applies to the JQC panel members, asserting that their participation tainted the disciplinary process.
The motion requests that the JQC’s formal charges be quashed to restore fairness and public confidence in the judicial oversight process. Alternatively, it seeks a stay of proceedings and an evidentiary hearing to examine the extent of the alleged bias, including questioning Hydrick, Darrisaw, and other panel members about their relationships with Reider and their roles in the investigation.
Williams, who won the 2020 election against Reider with 52.5% of the vote, securing over 106,000 votes in a highly contested race, was re-elected in 2024 despite public criticism following the JQC charges. The motion notes that Williams has cooperated fully with the JQC, responding to inquiries and attempting to resolve the matter without removal, but the Investigative Panel, influenced by Hydrick and Darrisaw, rejected her resolution efforts and did not offer a counterproposal.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
