TERRINEE L. GUNDY v. JAMES BALLI
A21A1763
| Ga. Ct. App. | Jan 19, 2022Background
- 2016 constitutional amendment reorganized the Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) into two panels whose members are appointed by the Governor, Lt. Governor (President of the Senate), Speaker, and Supreme Court and must be "submitted . . . to the Senate" for confirmation by the third Monday in January.
- In 2018 the submission deadline was January 15. Appointing authorities notified the Lt. Governor on January 12; counsel delivered the appointment letters to the Secretary of the Senate on January 12 and the Secretary time-stamped them.
- The Senate next met January 18; the Secretary placed a memo and the appointment letters on each senator’s desk that day and the Senate referred and later confirmed the appointees.
- The JQC investigations panel charged Judge Gundy in 2019; Gundy filed a quo warranto petition arguing the appointments were untimely because the Senate Journal showed the senators received the names January 18.
- The trial court admitted testimony from the Secretary of the Senate and denied the petition, finding timely submission had occurred when the Secretary received the letters; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of "submitted . . . to the Senate" (OCGA § 15-1-21(g)(1)) | "Submitted" means delivered directly to each senator; only delivery to individual senators counts. | Delivery to Senate officers (President/Secretary) constitutes submission to the Senate as a body. | Delivering the names to the Secretary (an officer of the Senate) satisfied "submitted . . . to the Senate." |
| Whether the Senate Journal is the exclusive evidence of when submission occurred | The Journal entry (showing distribution Jan 18) is the sole official evidence and controls timing. | The Journal is the official record but not the exclusive admissible evidence; testimony about ministerial receipt is admissible. | The Journal is not the exclusive evidence; the trial court properly considered the Secretary’s testimony about receipt Jan 12. |
| Right to jury trial over factual disputes in quo warranto | Factual disputes about when and how names were received required a jury. | The core dispute was statutory interpretation (legal), so the court could decide as a bench matter. | The contested matters were legal/statutory questions; bench decision was proper. |
| Timeliness and validity of 2018 (and 2019) appointments | Appointments were untimely (submitted Jan 18) and appointees were ineligible. | Appointments were timely (submitted via Secretary Jan 12) and validly confirmed. | Appointments were timely and the confirmations were valid; petition denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- PTI Royston v. Eubanks, 360 Ga. App. 263 (Ga. App. 2021) (articulating statutory-construction principles and plain-meaning rule)
- Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Loudermilk, 305 Ga. 558 (Ga. 2019) (use ordinary meaning of statutory words and consider legal context)
- Jones v. Boone, 297 Ga. 437 (Ga. 2015) (statutory construction is a legal question for the court)
- Pearle Optical of Monroeville v. Ga. State Bd. of Examiners in Optometry, 219 Ga. 364 (Ga. 1963) (legislature may assign ministerial duties to officers)
- Williams v. MacFeeley, 186 Ga. 145 (Ga. 1938) (courts should not invalidate legislative action solely on journal entries; caution in reviewing legislative procedure)
- Murphy v. ACLU of Ga., 258 Ga. 637 (Ga. 1988) (generally avoid judicial review of internal legislative procedures)