Floyd v. Stone
S21A1123
| Ga. | Dec 14, 2021Background
- Judge Michael N. Annis, re-elected in 2016 to a term beginning Jan. 1, 2017, tendered a resignation effective Feb. 1, 2020; Governor Kemp accepted on Dec. 20, 2019.
- The Judicial Nominating Commission submitted candidates to the Governor on Feb. 17, 2020; Governor Kemp appointed Jesse C. Stone on Feb. 22, 2021 (just over one year after the vacancy arose).
- Maureen O. Floyd sought leave to file an information in the nature of quo warranto on Mar. 5, 2021, alleging the appointment was not made “promptly” as required by Ga. Const. Art. V, § II, ¶ VIII(a).
- The trial court granted Judge Stone’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a quo warranto claim and denied Floyd leave to file the information, noting Floyd cited no authority showing removal is an appropriate remedy for an unprompt appointment.
- The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed, reasoning that even if the constitutional promptness requirement applied and was violated, removal of an appointee by quo warranto would not be a properly tailored remedy because it would recreate and prolong the vacancy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Art. V § II ¶ VIII(a)’s promptness requirement apply to judicial vacancies? | Floyd: The Governor must “promptly” fill judicial vacancies under Art. V § II ¶ VIII(a). | Stone: The provision governs executive vacancies; judicial Article has separate vacancy rules. | Pretermitted by court (not decided). |
| Did Governor Kemp fail to act promptly in appointing Stone? | Floyd: Waiting ~1 year to appoint was not “prompt.” | Stone: Appointment timing was lawful; trial court noted no controlling authority showing delay was unconstitutional. | Pretermitted by court (not decided). |
| Is quo warranto removal a proper remedy for an allegedly unprompt appointment? | Floyd: Removal of the appointee is appropriate to remedy constitutional violation. | Stone: Removal would create another vacancy and exacerbate the injury; no authority supports removal here. | Court: No — quo warranto removal is not a proper, tailored remedy; judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Perdue v. Palmour, 278 Ga. 217 (2004) (distinguishing Article V executive provisions from judicial Article VI)
- Barrow v. Raffensperger, 308 Ga. 660 (2020) (construing gubernatorial appointment and effect of vacancies)
- Charles H. Wesley Educ. Foundation, Inc. v. State Election Bd., 282 Ga. 707 (2007) (noting that timing requirements alone do not always divest authority to act)