Two seats on the Georgia Supreme Court are drawing Democratic challengers this year, setting up a rare set of contested elections in races that have traditionally attracted little attention from voters.
Former state Sen. Jen Jordan is challenging Justice Charlie Bethel, while trial attorney Miracle Rankin is running against Justice Sarah Warren. Bethel and Warren were both appointed by Republican former Gov. Nathan Deal. Early voting in both races began earlier this week ahead of the May 19 primary election.
Contested Supreme Court elections are unusual in Georgia, where justices are often appointed to fill vacancies and then run unopposed. That has made the current cycle stand out — not just because of the challengers, but because of how they are campaigning.
Rather than avoiding political issues, candidates are more openly signaling their views and values, reflecting a broader shift in how judicial races are being fought. It is a shift rooted in the growing recognition that courts, while designed to be neutral arbiters of the law, often decide issues with direct policy consequences.
“It’s hard as a practical matter to separate what courts do — deciding legal questions with real-world consequences — from the idea that they are completely neutral and non-ideological,” said Quinn Yeargain, a law professor at Michigan State University who studies state constitutional law.
That reality is shaping campaign strategy. “I think it makes sense as a strategy for candidates, and it’s also something voters are looking for because they recognize that courts are political actors,” Yeargain said.
Yeargain has donated to Jordan’s campaign.
While judicial elections often receive less attention than contests for governor or Congress, their impact can be just as significant and often longer lasting. And unlike the candidates in the marquee U.S. Senate and governors races who are vying to become their party’s nominee on May 19, the Supreme Court races will be fully decided.
“State courts are one of the most important battlegrounds in the country right now for elections and for rights and liberties,” Yeargain said.
The state courts are increasingly deciding cases involving abortion restrictions, redistricting disputes and the scope of executive power, and in many instances serve as the final venue for legal challenges that do not succeed in federal court.
“State courts are increasingly where people turn when they can’t win their cases in federal court,” Yeargain said.
Candidates themselves are reflecting that tension in how they frame their campaigns.
“As an attorney, I have spent my career representing Georgians in some of the most difficult moments of their lives,” Rankin said. “A justice must approach every case with independence, careful judgment, and respect for the Constitution and the law — without political pressure or personal agenda.”
Jordan, meanwhile, has framed the role of the court more explicitly in terms of its impact on policy and rights.
“Our Georgia Supreme Court must be our last line of defense against near-constant attacks on Georgians’ basic constitutional rights, from voting rights to reproductive freedom,” Jordan said. “This court majority is failing to meet the moment.”
But incumbents have continued to emphasize the traditional view of the court as a nonpartisan body. Bethel, a former Republican state senator, said the Constitution mandates judicial races be nonpartisan.
“And so even if that weren’t my personal conviction about judges and how the court should be, we would all be legally bound to hold ourselves in a nonpartisan capacity,” Bethel recently said on The Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s “Politically Georgia” podcast. “I’m fully committed to that. I will not engage in a partisan fight about my role on the court or the court itself.”
Judicial races have long been framed as nonpartisan contests focused on qualifications and experience, but in practice, the courts often decide issues with direct implications for public policy, including abortion access, election law and civil rights. In an environment of heightened political polarization, those stakes are becoming harder for candidates to ignore.
“If we’re going to have judicial elections, it’s kind of silly to pretend that they are totally nonpartisan, non-ideological affairs,” Yeargain said.
Candidates cannot promise how they would rule on specific cases, but they can signal values and priorities.
Jordan, a former Democratic state senator, enters the race with statewide name recognition and a record on issues including reproductive rights and voting access. Her campaign has leaned into those themes, reflecting a strategy that prioritizes clarity over caution. Bethel has offered a more traditional judicial approach.
In the other race, Rankin is positioning herself as an alternative to Warren, emphasizing her experience as a trial attorney and offering a contrast to an incumbent who has not previously faced a competitive election. Warren, like Bethel, benefits from incumbency in a system where sitting justices rarely draw serious opposition in races that often remain under the radar for voters.
Judicial contests are typically nonpartisan, meaning voters do not have the same cues they rely on in other elections.
“It takes more effort for voters to figure out who candidates are, what they stand for and why they should vote for them,” Yeargain said.
Long ballots and multiple down-ballot contests can also lead to voter fatigue, with some voters skipping judicial races altogether.
A recent race offers some insight into how these dynamics can play out. In 2024, former U.S. Rep. John Barrow challenged a sitting justice while openly campaigning on issues such as reproductive rights but ultimately lost a close race. The result suggested that the strategy can resonate with voters but may require higher turnout and greater investment to succeed.
With competitive primaries also in play this year, turnout could be higher than in past judicial races, raising the possibility that more voters will engage with contests that have historically drawn little attention.
The outcome of these races may depend less on legal credentials and more on engagement — whether voters treat them as meaningful choices rather than afterthoughts.
For a court that is often defined by its distance from politics, the central question this year may be whether voters see these races the same way.
