After watching the courts in Georgia steadily peel away rights from everyday people, one attorney has had enough. Jen Jordan, a previous Georgia State Senator, is running to replace Justice Sarah Warren in the state’s Supreme Court.
Jordan joins Jen to explain why she describers herself as a “pro-people judge and a pro-rights judge.” She details how she plans to put her experience serving the public to good use. The pair also discuss how the upcoming SCOTUS decision in Louisiana v. Callais could directly impact the voting rights of Georgians.
If you want to learn more about Jordan’s campaign, click here.
Jen Jordan is running to be a Justice in the Georgia Supreme Court. She previously represented District 6 in the Georgia State Senate. Before that she was a practicing attorney.
The following transcript has been edited for formatting purposes.
Jen Rubin
Hi, this is Jen Rubin, Editor-in-Chief of The Contrarian. I am thrilled to have with us Jen Jordan. She is a candidate for the State Supreme Court of Georgia, looking to unseat the incumbent, Sarah Warren. Welcome, Jen. Nice to meet you.
Jen Jordan
Thank you, thank you for having me here. Really excited for this conversation.
Jen Rubin
Absolutely. Should the voters replace the current Supreme Court justice? Has she done a bad job, or violated any ethical norms, or made decisions in your mind that are outside the mainstream of legal reasoning?
Jen Jordan
So, she hasn’t, to my understanding, violated any ethical norms. But from my perspective, in terms of the approach that is currently dominant on the Supreme Court here in Georgia, the court here now, tends to take a position where people have less rights, and they’ve really kind of pulled back on a lot of protections that have, that have always kind of been in place here in Georgia. Amazingly, a lot of people are very surprised to know that Georgia’s state constitution is actually fairly progressive. And intentionally so, in that, you know, we actually recognized, the right of privacy before the, federal courts did, the U.S. Supreme Court, and so, you know, our tradition is one where, and probably a former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court said it best, which is his approach was the federal U.S. Constitution is kind of the floor for rights, and then with respect to Georgia’s Constitution, it’s more.
And so, automatically, people in this state get more protection and more rights. And unfortunately, with the current configuration of the court, we have a bunch of folks who really have adopted the approach that those on the U.S. Supreme Court have taken, and really constricted rights and tried to do everything they can to even kind of take away standing, and really kind of constricted that doctrine so that people can’t even have access to the courts. And from my perspective, that is counter to our Constitution, it’s counter to precedent, and our tradition in this state, and so that’s why I’m running against her.
Jen Rubin
You have not been a judge before, you’ve been a lawyer for a very long time. Do you think that’s a handicap or an advantage going on to the state Supreme Court?
Jen Jordan
I think it’s an absolute advantage. I think that is one of the advantages that I have. I mean, look, what folks don’t realize a lot of times is that appellate courts are courts of review, right? And what that means is they are reviewing what a lower court has done. But when you review what a lawyer court has done, you’re reviewing what the lawyers have done as well. Whether you’re talking about the briefing, whether you’re talking about argument or trials. I have tried so many cases in front of juries in this state, and have gotten good decisions and bad.
I’ve been before judges who have agreed with me and who haven’t, and so it’s one of those things where I think for you to be able to review, actually, what is going on in a trial court appropriately, I think you should have at least appeared in a trial court, I think a lot, really, but, with respect to the current justice that I’m running again, I’m not sure if she ever appeared in a state court in Georgia prior to her being handpicked and put on the bench.
Jen Rubin
The current Supreme Court has sliced away at voting rights, invalidating Section 5. They may well invalidate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Sounds like, from the oral argument, they may ban state rules that allow ballots to come in after Election Day, even if they were postmarked before. What is your view of voting rights, and although you can’t, I know, comment on any specific cases, what do you think Georgia law does and should do for voters?
Jen Jordan
So it’s interesting that you brought up in terms of the current case pending for the U.S. Supreme Court. I think what we all expect in terms of Calais is that the U.S. Supreme Court, as it is currently configured. Will strike down. basically the final protections in place. And with those protections, they’re really more focused and concentrated in what, you know, the slave states. States with a history of racism, and slavery, the old Confederate states, which Georgia is one of those. And so, ever since the Voting Rights Act was past, we have been able to go to the federal courts to say, look, there’s a real problem with how these maps are being drawn. And they impact, a lot of times, communities of color and other marginalized, groups.
And so for years, we were able to do that. The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently been kind of whittling that away. And now, finally, we have Callais, right? And we think that’s going to be it, the final kind of death nail for the VRA. So what does that mean in terms of Georgia? Well, we haven’t had to deal with those cases in Georgia because of the fact that we were covered so you know, comprehensively by the Voting Rights Act. So what this means is we’re not going to be able to go to federal court, litigants aren’t going to be able to go to federal court anymore, and they are going to have to go to state court.
And so it goes back to what I was saying in terms of you know, what is your philosophy, or your reading of our state constitution and the rights that it provides to citizens that is really gonna color, how those challenges are handled in the future. And I think that’s gonna open up a whole new kind of door, in terms of, okay, what are the rights and what are the protections, with respect to the people who live in our state?
Jen Rubin
Does the state constitution of Georgia speak to redistricting and keeping communities of color intact so that they can exercise their choice, or is that absent and there are other principles that you would have to look to, if you wanted to, for example, preserve the current map in Georgia?
Jen Jordan
Yeah, other principles you’d have to look to. I mean, it is not as specific, and also what’s interesting about Georgia is the last time we ratified our Constitution was in 1983. So even, like, the whole approach that a lot of—especially the current court. Because a lot of those folks on the court kind of come from the Federalist Society tradition, right? And so they kind of impose, like, what… what did the Founding Fathers say?
We don’t have that issue in Georgia, because we actually have had so many iterations of our Constitution, and the last being, in 82, it’s called the 82 Constitution, voted on in 83, that was ratified by the entire state by voters. So it’s one of those things, you look back at 82 or 83, But because of that—think about it—there was no real concern at that point in terms of thinking about communities of color or gerrymandering, because the Voting Rights Act was in place. So, but what we do have are a lot of the basic rights that folks can actually use to challenge. You know, whether you’re talking about political association rights, whether you’re talking about First Amendment rights, I mean, there are different theories, that really could be used to challenge under the state constitution, and I’m sure they will be used if the Supreme Court actually overturns Calais.
Jen Rubin
We live in a very polarized political environment, and the public and the press have gotten used to calling judges conservative or liberal. How do you describe yourself, and what kind of judge would you be?
Jen Jordan
I think I like to describe myself as a pro-people judge and a pro-rights judge. It goes back to what I was saying in terms of the former Chief Justice, Harold Clarke, and the way he looked at the Constitution. I mean, look, Georgia as a colony, a lot of people don’t know this was actually settled as a progressive experiment, let’s say. Oglethorpe, you know, he had this idea that, you know, these people that were being jailed in these horrible conditions in, in London, that was inhumane. And so he had the idea that he would start Georgia, this colony, and it would be progressive, and it would be a place where folks could come and live, and really kind of the first idea of the American dream.
And so, that is what we are founded on, right? The whole idea of humane treatment of people, and, very egalitarian, and And very rights-based in terms of, you know, if you’re being persecuted, you can come here, right? And so, I think we… if we really kind of go back in terms of… even from our founding. you know, as a colony and then as a state, you know, and then look at the constitutions, it really is more about protecting the people as it should be, from overreaches of the state. And that would be my judicial philosophy.
Jen Rubin
Very good. There is an election on May 19, for some of the political candidates, it’s a primary for you, it’s the general election. If people want to find out more about you, or more about your campaign, where should they go?
Jen Jordan
They can go to Jen, J-E-N, the number 4, georgia (spelled out) .com, or Justice4Georgia.com. We are trying to do as much education as possible, because folks… I mean, I know it’s crazy, but this is literally a nonpartisan election that those in charge have put on the partisan ballot. And I think that that was done to try to limit the number of people who actually have input in one of the most important races, you know. on the ballot this year.
Everybody knows about the governor, or, you know, the president, all… the legislature, all of these things, U.S. Senate. But at the same time, we forget about the judiciary a lot of times, and in Georgia. The people of this state had the good sense to make sure that every 6 years, justices have to stand for election and have to account for what they do, which I think adds a level of transparency that we definitely don’t see at the federal level.
Jen Rubin
That is certainly the case. Well, friends, if you are wondering why we are covering a state Supreme Court race, it is because these are going to be the places where many of the rights are defended or not. As the Supreme Court cuts back as Jen Jordan said, on federal protections, the state Supreme Courts become extremely important and extremely critical to the preservation of democracy.
So we’re going to continue to follow the Georgia scene and other state Supreme Courts. It has never been more important, in choosing your justices on your state Supreme Court. So watch this space, as they say, and we will keep covering it. Best of luck, Jen, and we’ll be watching on May 19th. Thanks so much.
Jen Jordan
Thank you so much.
