Washington, DC— Today, the nation's first comprehensive study of the systems that hold state and federal judges accountable ranked Georgia 43^rd in the nation and issued the state's program a D+ grade. To shine a light on the typically secretive systems that often fail to remove abusive and incompetent judges from the bench, legal consumer watchdog group HALT, Inc. released its 2008 Judicial Accountability Report Card, analyzing programs in all 50 states, D.C. and the federal circuits.

"Georgia's system of judicial oversight is one of the most toothless in the nation," stated HALT Senior Counsel Suzanne M. Blonder, noting that state rules allow some dysfunctional judges to be sanctioned with private admonitions and reprimands, and in these circumstances the public never learns of the judge's history of misconduct.

In 2005, the state's Judicial Qualifications Commission found that Alpharetta Judge Scott Childress had committed a number of serious offenses, including allowing too many delays in one court case, improperly holding another case in his court for a bond hearing, and using improper procedures to reverse the erroneous reporting of a conviction to state authorities. Instead of removing Childress from the bench, the Commission merely slapped him on the wrist with a reprimand.

HALT also faulted the state for prohibiting citizens from speaking publicly about their ethics complaints against judges. Unlike policies in most states that allow individuals to speak freely, Georgia rules forbid complainants from disclosing the fact that a complaint was filed. "The vast majority of states have abolished these sorts of 'gag' rules," stated Blonder. "Georgia's restrictions not only violate citizens' right to free speech, they also keep the general public in the dark about whether the system of judicial oversight is operating effectively."

And while Georgia law requires judges to file annual reports disclosing their financial interests, the state Supreme Court seals these records from the public. "Concealing this critical information prevents litigants from having the opportunity to determine whether the judge presiding over their case possesses a conflict of interest," stated Blonder.

None of the top five states-Washington, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Arizona and California-scored higher than a B average on HALT's Report Card. More than half of the states received grades in the C range and HALT issued D's to 14 jurisdictions. Two states-Maine and Mississippi-flunked outright.

"At a time when the American public has lost faith in the impartiality and fairness of the nation's judiciary, it's critical that we have an effective system of oversight for judges," stated Blonder. "We hope that Georgia's chief judicial officers will work to transform a mechanism marred by secrecy into a system dedicated to upholding the integrity of the judiciary."