Sarah Hawkins Warren
Non-Partisan | Georgia
Candidate Profile
Moderate
BIOGRAPHY
Name
Sarah Hawkins Warren
Party
Non-Partisan
Election Year
2026
Election
Republican Primary, Judicial General and Senate District 7 Specials
Race
Justice of the Supreme Court, Warren
Incumbent
Yes
Links
EDUCATION
Candidate did not provide
WORK & MILITARY
Candidate did not provide
AFFILIATIONS
Candidate did not provide
POLITICAL OFFICES HELD
Candidate did not provide
POLITICAL OFFICES SOUGHT
Candidate did not provide
ENDORSEMENTS
CONSERVATIVE (1)
Frontline Policy Action
SELECTED CONTRIBUTIONS
CONSERVATIVE
GIVEN BY CANDIDATE (1)
Ted Cruz (2013)
RECEIVED BY CANDIDATE (5)
Butch Miller (2020)
John F. Kennedy (2020)
Meagan Hanson (2020)
The Right Group (2020)
Tricia Hise (2020)
LIBERAL
GIVEN BY CANDIDATE (0)
RECEIVED BY CANDIDATE (3)
Barnes Law Group (2020)
Natasha Hill (2020)
Seth A. & Beth S. Klarman (2020)
OTHER INFORMATION
Ammons v. State (2021). Concurred. The Court partly agreed and partly disagreed with the lower court. It said that a person cannot be forced to take a breath or field sobriety test because doing so is considered giving evidence against themselves under the Georgia Constitution. However, refusing a blood test is allowed to be used in court and does not violate the Constitution. The court overruled an older case, Keenan, which had allowed using refusal evidence for breath tests.
Marquez v. Aguirre (2025). Concurred. The Georgia Supreme Court held that the lower court was correct to let the biological father try to become the child’s legal father, even though the child was born during the mother’s marriage. Under Georgia Law, the husband is automatically the child’s legal father. By allowing the case to move forward using a “best interests of the child” test, the court of appeals let the biological father seek recognition without first removing the husband’s legal rights.
King v. King (2023). Dissented in part (disagreed partially) with the Court’s decision. She said the Court should not have answered all the questions from the federal court. In Warren's view; however, the Court should only answer questions when the law is new or unclear—not just to make things easier. She argued the first question did not need an answer because Georgia law was already settled on that issue. She also said the other questions depended on the facts of the case and could be handled using existing law.
Maynard et al. v. Snapchat Inc. (2022). Justice Warren agreed that the case should not have been dismissed, but wrote separately to explain some concerns. She said the main opinion was correct because, at this early stage, courts must assume the plaintiffs’ claims are true. But she warned that parts of the main opinion went too far. She did not agree with all of the reasoning and thought the Court should be more careful about how broadly the decision is read.
Schmitz v. Barron et al. (2021) Justice Warren agreed with court's decision. The Court affirmed the lower court’s decision to throw out Schmitz’s election challenge. Schmitz had challenged the results of a 2020 election but did not properly notify the winning candidate, Shea Roberts, about the case. The law requires that all candidates be officially notified. The court found that it was Schmitz’s job to make sure Roberts was properly served, and he did not act quickly or carefully enough to do that. Because of this, the lower court was allowed to dismiss the case. On appeal, Schmitz argued the court should not have dismissed his case for this reason, but the Court disagreed. It said the rules for election challenges must be followed strictly and quickly, and Schmitz did not meet those requirements.
QUESTIONNAIRE
RIGHT TO LIFE
Was Dobbs v. Jackson rightly decided according to the text of the Constitution? Please explain. (Holding: In Dobbs, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the federal constitution does not confer a right to abortion.)
Did not answer
Does the federal Constitution support the right to physician assisted suicide? Please explain in light of Washington v. Glucksberg (1997).
Did not answer
Human life deserves legal protection from conception until natural death.
Did not answer
How do you view the judiciary’s role in matters of abortion regulation following Dobbs?
Did not answer
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
Do you believe religious liberty is at risk in the United States. If so, what is the judiciary's proper role in addressing this issue?
Did not answer
Does the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment require government to be strictly secular or does it allow for the nation's religious heritage?
Did not answer
Was Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission rightly decided according to the text of the Constitution? Please explain. (Holding: The U.S. Supreme Court held tha the state may not show religious hostility when enforcing anti-discrimination laws against a business owner.)
Did not answer
CRIMINAL JUSTICE & PUBLIC SAFETY
The burden of proof in a criminal case is generally that the state must provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Some say the reason the burden of proof is so high is because we greatly value ensuring that the innocent are not unjustly imprisoned. Please comment on this topic.
Did not answer
When reviewing wrongful conviction claims, what role, if any, should judges play in determining remedies?
Did not answer
2ND AMENDMENT
What is your understanding of the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms?
Did not answer
OTHER IMPORTANT ISSUES
Which branch of government do you believe was intended to wield the most authority?
Did not answer
JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY
Describe your judicial philosophy.
Did not answer
Do you believe judges should primarily apply the law according to its original public meaning, or do you believe the law evolves over time to reflect contemporary values?
Did not answer
Which current or past U.S. Supreme Court justice best reflects your judicial philosophy?
Did not answer
Was Obergefell v. Hodges rightly decided according to the text of the Constitution? Please explain. (Holding: The U.S. Supreme Court held Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses create a right for same-sex couples to marry.)
Did not answer
A. How should a judge approach a case where the constitutional or statutory text is clear on its face? B. Conversely, how should a judge proceed when the text is ambiguous or silent on a disputed issue?
Did not answer
What is your view of judicial restraint versus judicial activism? How do you define each?
Did not answer
What is the proper role of a judge?
Did not answer
When applying or interpreting the text of a statute or constitutional provision, is it ever proper for a judge to consider present day public opinion or consequences?
Did not answer
If precedent departs from the Constitution’s text or original meaning, should a judge follow it or correct the error? Please explain.
Did not answer
ABOUT YOU
Have you ever been convicted of a felony? If so, please explain.
Did not answer
Have you ever been penalized for sexual misconduct in either civil or criminal court? If so, please explain.
Did not answer
I voted in these primaries and general elections:
Did not answer
VALUES
Briefly describe your spiritual beliefs and values.
Did not answer
What is your understanding of parental rights under the Constitution regarding the upbringing of children, particularly regarding choices about education and sexual identity?
Did not answer
Is gender identity a protected class under the Constitution? Please explain the constitutional basis for your view.
Did not answer
