On Monday, May 18, 2026, Georgia Recorder reported that two Democratic-backed candidates, Jen Jordan and Miracle Rankin, seeking positions on the Georgia Supreme Court, are under scrutiny for potentially violating judicial ethics rules during their campaigns.
The state agency responsible for addressing judicial misconduct complaints, the Judicial Qualifications Commission, released two public statements just before the election, indicating it “reasonably believes” that Jordan, a former state senator, and Rankin, a personal injury attorney, contravened Georgia’s Code of Judicial Conduct by publicly endorsing each other.
The committee stated that the candidates appeared at reproductive freedom events and indicated they would restore abortion rights, which violates the rule against judicial candidates making statements on issues likely to come before the court. A legal challenge to Georgia’s six-week abortion ban is pending and may return to the state Supreme Court.
The complaints against Jordan and Rankin may be referred to a full investigative panel, potentially leading to sanctions or disciplinary action. The public statements from the commission allowed for the public release of a lawsuit filed by Rankin and Jordan under seal. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in May, responded to the commission’s letters notifying them of the complaints.
Both candidates are challenging incumbent justices in nonpartisan elections. Unlike other races, where primary winners advance to the November general election, these races will be decided on Tuesday’s election.
Rankin and Jordan have criticized the Judicial Qualifications Commission’s decision, asserting it infringes on their right to freedom of speech. Rankin stated, “They have chosen to attack my campaign because my message is resonating with voters — that judges should serve all Georgians without fear or favor.” She expressed confidence that Georgians would recognize the situation and exercise their right to elect their preferred candidate to the Supreme Court.
Jordan stated that abortion rights and women’s health are critical issues for voters, who deserve transparency regarding her stance. She added, “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 asserted that her speech is protected by the First Amendment and is essential for voters to make informed decisions.
Other state Supreme Court challengers have faced similar rulings from the commission. John Barrow, a former Democratic congressman, filed a lawsuit in 2024 after receiving a letter stating his Supreme Court campaign conduct, which largely focused on protecting reproductive rights, may have violated judicial ethics rules.
Quinn Yeargain, a constitutional law professor at Michigan State University and Emory University Law School alumnus, noted that judicial candidates must balance informing voters of their values and pledging impartiality.
Yeargain stated, “If the goal of having elections is to have democratic input, then the input has to be based on something.” He added that voters make uninformed guesses if they lack adequate information. Yeargain also noted that states do not always provide clear guidelines for candidates, and the rules can be nuanced. He explained that while judicial candidates cannot comment on how they would rule, they can discuss their beliefs and values.
Source: Georgia Recorder
