Carla McMillian
Non-Partisan | Georgia
Candidate Profile
Uncontested
BIOGRAPHY
Name
Carla McMillian
Party
Non-Partisan
Election Year
2022
Election
Primary
Race
Supreme Court, (McMillian seat)
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
Race
SELECTED CONTRIBUTIONS
LIBERAL
GIVEN BY CANDIDATE (1)
Scott Holcomb (2022)
RECEIVED BY CANDIDATE (1)
Scott Holcomb (2022)
OTHER INFORMATION
Justice McMillian has served on the Georgia Supreme Court since 2020. Before that, she served on the Georgia Court of Appeals since 2013.
Notable Cases:
- Maynard et al v. Snapchat (2022): Signed Justice Colvin's majority opinion. Held that Snapchat's "Speed Filter" feature, which records a user's real-life speed to share in a picture or video, was negligently designed because "a manufacturer has a duty under our decisional law to use reasonable care in selecting from alternative designs to reduce reasonably foreseeable risks of harm posed by its products. When a particular risk of harm from a product is not reasonably foreseeable, a manufacturer owes no design duty to reduce that risk. How a product was being used (e.g., intentionally, negligently, properly, improperly, or not at all) and who was using it (the plaintiff or a third party) when an injury occurred are relevant considerations in determining whether a manufacturer could reasonably foresee a particular risk of harm from its product. Nevertheless, our decisional law does not recognize a blanket exception to a manufacturer’s design duty in all cases of intentional or tortious third-party use" (2). The case involved a plaintiff who sustained injuries due to an accident which occurred while they were using the app. Reversed the Court of Appeals, which held that a manufacturer's duty to "design reasonably safe products does not extend to people injured by a third party’s intentional and tortious misuse of the manufacturer’s product" (1-2). This holding came from the precedent of Jones v. NordicTrack, Inc (2001) and Richmond & D.R. Co. v. Dickey (1892). Held that Maynard's claim survived a motion to dismiss (17).
- Awad v. State (2022): Signed Justice Colvin's majority opinion. Held that Article I, Section I, Paragraph XVI of the Georgia Constitution prohibited the State from admitting into evidence a defendant’s refusal to urinate into a collection container as directed by the State for purposes of providing a urine sample for chemical testing (1-2). Implied consent covers the testing of urine (2). Paragraph XVI says "“[n]o person shall be compelled to give testimony tending in any manner to be self-incriminating" (4). Held that precedent found that the paragraph was not limited to “limited to evidence of a testimonial or communicative nature,” but it also protected a defendant from performing an act which would generate incriminating evidence (4). Cited that the state has the burden to prove that evidence is admissible on a motion to suppress (7). Held that the precedent of Olevik and Elliot prohibited the state from admitting into evidence a defendant's refusal to submit to a urine test (9).
- Schmitz v. Barron et al (2021): Signed Justice Bethel's majority opinion. Held that Schmitz, an individual contesting the results of a Georgia House of Representatives election between Roberts and Silcox, failed to exercise diligence to see that Roberts was properly served, and the petition was therefore properly dismissed by the superior court (1-2). Held that OCGA § 21-2-524 (f) requires candidates to be served with notice of the election contest, and held that the superior court's findings were supported by the record and within its discretion (2). Cited that an election contest is designed by the General Assembly to be an "expedited proceeding" by requiring that petitions be filed within 5 days of the consolidated returns, and that the court held in Swain that other defendants and interested individuals be given proper notice (2-4). The superior court held that it saw no evidence of an attempt to serve Roberts. Schimitz responded that he requested that she be served, but service was not performed due to matters outside his control (7-9). The superior court held that Schmitz's "lack of diligence" in seeing that defendants be served sooner until two months after filing his petition was inexcusable in light of Swain's requirement that election challenges be heard expeditiously (9-10). Held that, while service was the duty of the clerk and sheriff, Swain requires that "judicial recognition of the clerk’s duty in election cases to issue process in the proper form does not end the inquiry” and that plaintiffs must exercise diligence if they become aware of a delay (11-12). Cited that Swain allowed cases to be dismissed if there was no attempt to serve a defendant after becoming aware they had not been served (12-13). "Here, the record, as it existed at the time of dismissal, supports the superior court’s determination that, despite repeated indications that Roberts had never been served with the special process required by OCGA § 21-2-524 (f), Schmitz did not exercise diligence in ensuring that, once issued by the clerk, the special process was served on Roberts by the sheriff" (13). Held that Schmitz's argument that Swain was distinguishable failed (14-15). Held that, since Schmitz did not exercise diligence, the superior court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the petition (16).
QUESTIONNAIRE
VALUES
I agree with Critical Race Theory (CRT) which asserts that the institutions in the United States are fundamentally racist.
Did not answer
Judeo-Christian values established a framework of morality that is necessary for our system of limited government.
Did not answer
Briefly describe your spiritual beliefs and values.
Did not answer
What types of pro bono work have you done?
Did not answer
ABOUT YOU
Have you ever been convicted of a felony or been penalized in either civil or criminal court for sexual misconduct? If so, please explain.
Did not answer
What education or experience qualifies you to hold the office for which you seek election?
Did not answer
Why should the voters choose you?
Did not answer
I voted in these primaries and general elections:
Did not answer
JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY
Justices should not interpret the federal and state constitutions as living documents, but should use a textualist and originalist approach to interpretation.
Did not answer
What is the proper use of legislative history in interpreting statutory law?
Did not answer
Which current or past U.S. Supreme Court justice best reflects your judicial philosophy?
Did not answer
How should a court address the balance between public health and individual freedoms in the time of a pandemic?
Did not answer
In light of the case Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include a prohibition on sexual-orientation discrimination, which justice’s opinion most closely aligns with your own opinion?
Did not answer
What role (if any) does a judge have in maintaining the separation of church and state?
Did not answer
Religious liberty is at risk in the United States and deserves the highest level of protection in the law.
Did not answer
When should a judge overturn past court decisions?
Did not answer
How should a judge determine which rights are protected by the Constitution even though they are not specifically mentioned?
Did not answer
What legal principles should a court consider when evaluating parents’ objection to their child obtaining medical procedures or drugs designed to affirm the child’s desired gender?
Did not answer
What principles should guide a court’s analysis of whether your state’s constitution gives terminally ill patients a right to assisted suicide?
Did not answer
Would you describe your judicial philosophy as originalist, living constitutionalist, or something else?
Did not answer
