Private: Georgia Amendment Threatens Independence of Judicial Watchdog

by David Lyle

Money doesn’t grow on trees, but Georgia state court judge William Bass found the next best thing. Over a period of seven years, the judge imposed fines that had no basis in law on misdemeanor defendants in his court in rural Grady County. These illegal fines, the bulk of which were taken from indigent defendants, amounted to nearly $300,000 in a single 12-month period. The scheme continued until the independent watchdog agency that oversees Georgia’s judges, the Judicial Qualifications Commission (“JQC”), uprooted Grady County’s money tree by exposing the judge’s conduct. Georgia’s JQC has ended abuses by dozens of rogue judges in recent years, which makes it all the more surprising that politicians in the Legislature have proposed an amendment to the state’s constitution that would abolish the JQC. The measure, Amendment 3, will be on the ballot when voters go to the polls on Tuesday.

For over 40 years, the JQC has served as a watchdog protecting the public from judges who abuse the tremendous power given to them in our system of justice. Although the overwhelming majority of Georgia’s judges do their best to follow the law and serve the public by providing impartial justice, as in any large institution, there are some who fail to do so. Over the years, the JQC has built a lengthy record of holding accountable judges who engaged in outrageous conduct, including racism, sexism, sexual assault and other criminal activity. In most cases, these judges were removed from office or chose to resign, leaving the state with a fairer and more effective judiciary.

Some of the abuses uncovered by the JQC are shocking. Two different judges had drugs planted on defendants who refused their sexual advances. Another jailed defendants indefinitely without access to lawyers and otherwise behaved so outrageously that her actions became the subject of an episode of This American Life. Another recommended to defendants that they use the services of a bail bond company owned by her father, and was subsequently indicted for perjury after denying she did so before a federal grand jury.

Ironically, one of the abusive judges the JQC removed from office is now part of the effort to abolish the agency. Judge Johnnie Caldwell, Jr. resigned from the bench after the JQC opened an investigation into crude sexual remarks the judge made to a female attorney appearing in his court. He then ran for and was elected to Georgia’s House of Representatives, and there he co-sponsored the legislation to place Amendment 3 on the ballot.

The effort to abolish the JQC appears to be motivated by a desire to end the JQC’s independence and bring it under the control of the Legislature. Currently, the JQC’s seven members are selected by the Supreme Court of Georgia and the State Bar, and the membership also includes non-lawyer citizen members. The Amendment does not bind the legislature to any particular replacement for the JQC, but observers predict that the new body would be dominated by the political branches. Opponents of the Amendment have called it a “political power grab.”

Such an arrangement opens the door to backroom deals to protect abusive judges at the expense of the public upon which they prey. Under a system of discipline controlled by the Legislature, judges accused of wrongdoing would be able to call in political favors to shut down investigations and avoid exposure and sanctions. For the sort of judges who would engage in abusive and even illegal conduct, and then rely on backroom politics to cover up their wrongdoing, the JQC’s insulation from political influence is a bug, not a feature.

Legislative oversight of the judiciary also raises serious separation of power and judicial impartiality issues. An agency that is a tool of the Legislature might turn a blind eye to politically-connected judges who abuse their office, but it could just as easily unfairly target good judges who follow the law and in doing so reach results that anger powerful interests or the legislators themselves. Already, state court judges face pressure from interest groups that are increasingly pouring money into state judicial elections. Replacing the nonpolitical JQC with a substitute that is highly responsive to politicians will give those interests one more potential lever to use to bend the courts away from justice and toward their desired outcomes.

David Lyle is the director of the state courts project at ACS. He is a member of the Georgia bar.