By J. Randolph Evans

Justice George Carley turned Georgia judicial elections upside down with a single decision this week. Here is what happened.

2012 was shaping up as a pivotal election for Georgia’s judiciary. On July 31, 2012 (Georgia’s Primary Election), Georgia voters would elect a majority of Georgia’s seven Supreme Court justices.

Placing four justices on the same ballot at the same time carried significant implications. It meant that Georgia primary voters could decide control of Georgia’s highest court in a single election.

Not surprisingly, various groups impacted by Georgia Supreme Court decisions began to talk about different possibilities – including putting up a ‘slate’ of candidates for all four Georgia Supreme Court seats. Of course, there is no shortage of folks disappointed with court decisions. After all, the court’s job is to decide the ‘winner’ and ‘loser’ in each case that comes before it.

The risk for judges standing for reelection goes up when the number of unhappy losers outweighs the number of happy winners. The most influential groups impacted by such decisions include doctors, lawyers, law enforcement officials, businesses, and social conservatives. The parents of Charter School students also had to be added to the list.

Separately, these groups probably could not topple an incumbent. Coordinated, they could spell trouble. Coordinated on a ‘cause’ basis with a slate of candidates, they could spell real trouble.

Since the Iowa Supreme Court elections in 2010 (in which three incumbents lost), the risks of slate elections have taken on new importance. While lawyers (and the Bar Association) are typically good barometers of trouble, the Iowa elections proved that average voters can be unpredictable and, sometimes, can coalesce to create some unexpected results. Georgia is no exception.

In 2010, Justice David Nahmias (a consensus judicial superstar) was forced into a run-off by a candidate who did not even campaign. Justice Nahmias was elected in a runoff. But, this judicial close call left its mark. Everyone understood that judicial elections in the best circumstances – even with a consensus candidate – are unpredictable.

Of course, no one expects the 2012 elections, either in the Primary Election or the General Election, to be normal. Most politicians and insiders understand that there is a genuine unease among voters – a dangerous unease – capable of galvanizing around either the expected or the unexpected to certainly create unexpected results.

The possibility of a vacancy on the court only amplified these dynamics. After all, an election without an incumbent draws interest, candidates, money, and political groups. Indeed, as this week started, candidates were already registering campaign committees, raising money (real money), and making the rounds.

Justice Carley’s seat was of particular interest. First, there would be no incumbent (which is a big deal in itself.) Second, his seat represents an important vote on the court (not that every vote is not important since there are only seven).

Indeed, most court watchers regarded Justice Carley as a solid, reliable conservative vote on the court (in addition to being a brilliant jurist, talented writer, and effective voice). His departure opened up the risk (or possibility, depending on the perspective) of rebalancing the court.

Finally, since the Georgia Legislature moved the Supreme Court election to the Primary Election (from the General Election), the political dynamics are tricky. When the effort to move the TSPLOST vote from the General Election to the Primary Election failed, the dynamics became even more complicated.

Basically, except for a local election here or there, the most significant election contest in the Primary Election will be the GOP primary for the new Congressional District (which itself has no incumbent). More voters will likely vote in that contest. On the other hand, most expect voter turnout in the rest of the state to be low. That combination will have an impact on the outcome of the statewide judicial elections.

With all of these dynamics, some believed that the 2012 judicial elections were headed for a train wreck (with most folks on the train thinking everything was okay). Then, it all changed.

Justice Carley decided to step down early rather than simply retire and create a vacancy. His decision will give Governor Nathan Deal the option of naming Justice Carley’s replacement. There is one more significant impact created by the timing of his departure and a unique feature of Georgia law. If Governor Deal appoints Justice Carley’s replacement, then his appointee will not stand for reelection until 2014 (as opposed to Justice Carley’s seat being on the ballot in 2012).

So, the world changed. Three Georgia Supreme Court Justices will still be on the ballot in 2012 (as opposed to an actual majority). The election will still be in July. And, Georgians will still have an important decision to make – just not quite as earthshaking as it was a week ago.