This week, DouglasNow has been asked a number of times by citizens one question regarding a race on the 2024 primary election ballot. Next Tuesday, voters will go to the polls to decide who will sit on the State Court bench for the next four years.
The question that has been asked relates to that election and is as follows: What happens if the State Court Judge is married to the sheriff? Though that may sound odd, that very scenario could happen in Coffee County. Current State Court Judge Katy Paulk is married to sheriff’s candidate Daniel Paulk — if both emerge from the election victorious, this unique situation would indeed be a reality.
The body that oversees judges in Georgia is the Judicial Qualifications Commission. The JQC conducts investigations and hearings regarding Georgia’s judges. Additionally, the JQC issues Advisory Opinions on a variety of subjects. On the JQC’s web site (gajqc.gov) is Opinion 235 titled Conflict of Interest/Failure to Disqualify. Point #1 of the opinion reads “whether a judge may preside over cases involving the judge’s spouse in the spouse’s capacity as the duly elected sheriff of the county in which the judge presides.” The opinion outlines three other points before addressing the issue. Without getting into the legalese of the opinion, the short answer is no, a judge, if married to the county sheriff, cannot preside over cases the sheriff’s department makes or is otherwise involved in.
For further clarification, DouglasNow contacted an Atlanta attorney who, speaking on the condition of anonymity but who has no connection to this case and knows no one involved on either side, rendered an analysis of Opinion 235. Here is a portion of what he had to say:
“Marriage – or any romantic relationship – between a presiding State Court Judge and the local Sheriff is, in both spirit and by letter of the law, a serious conflict of many interests. For reference, the JQC’s official ruling in Opinion 235 is on point and so is the requisite Code of Judicial Conduct Rule, which the Opinion only cites partially. Impartiality cannot be trusted – for it is the appearance of impartiality that matters as much as the real presence of it – where the Judge is related to the law enforcement officer whose office is charged with investigating, detaining, and/or presenting a party eventually before the Court.”
The remedy for such a scenario would be for the Judge to recuse himself or herself from any cases that fit this description. That could be accomplished in a couple of different ways. First of all, the Superior Court Judges could hear those cases. The Superior Court bench also has jurisdiction over State Court; that, however, would probably not happen.
More likely, a visiting Judge would have to come to town to preside over these cases. The exact number of cases that would entail is unknown; likewise, the frequency with which a visiting Judge would travel to Douglas is also unknown.
Regardless of what happens, justice would still get served in Coffee County. It’s just a matter of how complicated and at what expense doing so would entail.