Verda Colvin
Non-Partisan | Georgia
Candidate Profile*
Moderate
*Additional information appears below for educational purposes; however, only data received prior to the candidate deadline was considered during Panel Evaluation.
BIOGRAPHY
Name
Verda Colvin
Party
Non-Partisan
Election Year
2022
Election
Primary
Race
Supreme Court, (Colvin seat)
Incumbent
Yes
Links
EDUCATION
Sweet Briar College, Sweet Briar, BA Dual degree Government/Religion, 1987
University of Georgia School of Law, Athens, J.D., 1990
WORK & MILITARY
Candidate did not provide
AFFILIATIONS
Jack and Jill of America, Macon Chapter, Associate Mom (former Parliamentarian), Chisholm Leadership Academy
Board Member, Fuller Center Housing of Middle GA, Executive Board Member (formerly Chair of the Board)
Regional Partnership Council of the Boys and Girls Club of Central GA, Board Member, Macon-Bibb Citizens Advocacy Board
Secretary, Goodwill of Middle GA Board, Board Member
Rescue Mission, Community Partner, Rotary Downtown Club
Member, First Baptist Church, Member, Women's Leadership Team, formerly Children's Sunday School Teacher
POLITICAL OFFICES HELD
Superior Court Judge Macon Judicial Circuit, 2014-2020
Georgia Court of Appeals, 2020-2021
Georgia Supreme Court, 2021- Present
POLITICAL OFFICES SOUGHT
Candidate did not provide
Race
ENDORSEMENTS
REPORTED BY CANDIDATE (4)
Former Chief Justice Leah Sears Collins
Former Governor Roy Barnes
Georgia Equality
more forthcoming...
OTHER INFORMATION
Justice Colvin has served on the Georgia Supreme Court since 2021. Before that, she served on the Georgia Court of Appeals, the Superior Court of Bibb County, and as an Assistant U.S. Attorney. She was appointed by Governor Brian Kemp to both the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals.
Notable Cases:
- Awad v. State (2022): Wrote 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 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). Wrote concurrence. Noted that she faithfully applied the precedent because the State argued only argued that it's position was consistent with it, not that the precedent was wrong. Said that she had "grave concerns about the interpretation of our Constitution in Olevik and Elliott" but that the issue was not before the court (18).
- Maynard et al. v. Snapchat (2022): Wrote 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).
- 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 candidates 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 being contested, 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 must be given proper notice (2-4). The superior court held that it saw no evidence of an attempt by Schmitz to serve Roberts. Schmitz responded that he requested that Roberts be served, but service was not achieved 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).
After being sworn in, Justice Colvin said, "I understand that 'Justice' refers to people who embody the law, and 'Judge' refers to one who speaks the law. I vow to each and every one of the judges and every citizen of the State of Georgia to be an avid student of the law-- open and ready to continually learn from my colleagues. Equally as important, I will always remember that embodying the law must be tempered with remembering that people and businesses alike are the centerpiece of every opinion authored by the highest court of this state."
A video went viral in 2016 of then-Judge Colvin giving "tough love" to a room of troubled youth. She told the children, "Listen to me. The way you're going, you will go to jail or you will end up in this body bag... whatever anybody has told you before, you are special. You are uniquely made. Stop acting like you are trash and putting pictures of yourself on the internet. Stop being disrespectful to your parents. Care about your future. Be somebody. Anybody can be nothing." She later appeared on Fox News to discuss her address.
While she was a superior court judge, she told Mercer Law School, "I don't put people in jail, I just give them what they want. So, if you don't conform, you want to go, you just don't realize it yet" (23:44). "As long as I'm on the bench, I will give people the respect that they deserve. You know, I require them to look at me. When I am talking to them I say, 'Look at me. Look at me in my eyes. I want you to understand what I'm saying...' People are internally dying. We see it in our society every day. Look at what's going on in our world. And I say this sometimes on the bench-- we have lost our moral compass as a people, as a nation, in many ways. And so, to the extent I can, I try to bring that back" (27:19).
QUESTIONNAIRE*
*Additional information was received after the evaluation was assigned and was not considered in the Panel Evaluations, therefore it is for additional educational purposes only.
VALUES
I agree with Critical Race Theory (CRT) which asserts that the institutions in the United States are fundamentally racist.
Choose not to answer
As a jurist our Judicial Code of Conduct prevents, in fact prohibits us from espousing our personal views on various social or political theories. This restriction is in place to ensure that jurists are reminded and the public has assurance that any issue that comes before the court can be fairly considered based upon the law.
Judeo-Christian values established a framework of morality that is necessary for our system of limited government.
Neutral
I agree that Judeo-Christian values established the framework of our system of government. However, the Judicial Code of Ethics prohibits me from expressing an opinion about my belief system. I will err on the side of caution by not responding further.
Briefly describe your spiritual beliefs and values.
I am a Christian. I am a deeply spiritual person. It is what led me to pursue a legal career and it drives and motivates everything I do- from my service as a jurist to my service as a community leader. Those values have defined who I am personally and professionally.
What types of pro bono work have you done?
My entire career, with the exception of about four years, has been with governmental entities . As a result, I have been restricted from performing pro bono work. However, I have sought to help economically disadvantaged citizens through my engagement in other ways throughout my community even before my role as a jurist.
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.
I have never been convicted of a felony or been penalized in either civil or criminal court for sexual misconduct.
What education or experience qualifies you to hold the office for which you seek election?
As a licensed attorney I have practiced law for 32 years. I have been associated with a law firm and I have also served as an Assistant General Counsel for a University System. Additionally, I have served in virtually every level of criminal prosecution- ordinance violations and misdemeanor offenses in Municipal Court and State Court, felony offenses in Superior Court and federal offenses in Federal Court. I was honored to be appointed to the Superior Court in the Macon Judicial Circuit where I served for six years prior to my appointment to the Georgia Court of Appeals. I am now serving as a Justice on the Georgia Supreme Court. I now running to retain my seat. I believe my extensive experience as a trial attorney and jurist qualifies me to retain my seat on the the Supreme Court.
Why should the voters choose you?
Voters should choose me because I am committed, balanced and proven. My experience professionally and personally have demonstrated my sincere commitment to those I serve and the rule of law.
I voted in these primaries and general elections:
Choose not to answer
The Supreme Court Race is a Non-Partisan race.
JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY
Justices should not interpret the federal and state constitutions as living documents, but should use a textualist and originalist approach to interpretation.
Neutral
I do not adhere to any particular approach. I have never sought to identify myself with any specific judicial philosophy. I am to apply the law as promulgated by the legislative branch and both the Georgia and United States Constitution.
What is the proper use of legislative history in interpreting statutory law?
I believe legislative history assists in interpreting statutory law; however, we will often recount in opinions that the legislature says what it means and means what it says.
Which current or past U.S. Supreme Court justice best reflects your judicial philosophy?
I don’t prescribe to any particular philosophy. I have no agenda. My role is to interpret the law. The rule of law is my guide.
How should a court address the balance between public health and individual freedoms in the time of a pandemic?
Courts must always be mindful of both the public health and the freedoms of every American in the time of a pandemic. There are a multitude of considerations that jurists must take into account always mindful of the varying viewpoints and rights of those involved.
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?
As a jurist our Judicial Code of Conduct prevents, in fact prohibits us from expressing our personal views on various social or political theories. This restriction is in place to ensure that jurists are reminded and the public has assurance that any issue that comes before the court can be fairly considered based upon the law.
What role (if any) does a judge have in maintaining the separation of church and state?
We are bound by our oath and the constitution to be vigilant in maintaining the separation of church and state.
Religious liberty is at risk in the United States and deserves the highest level of protection in the law.
Neutral
Our Constitution is a guidepost for these issues. We are duty bound to honor such. Again, our judicial code of ethics greatly restrict jurists ability to opine on issues. Having served on the Judicial Qualifications Commission I am very well aware of my limitations in this regard. Our Constitution is a guidepost to these issues. We are duty bound to honor such.
When should a judge overturn past court decisions?
We should always be mindful of precedent but when such is erroneous we should never hesitate to overturn past court decisions. A stare decisis analysis guides the court in determining if precedent should be overturned.
How should a judge determine which rights are protected by the Constitution even though they are not specifically mentioned?
Serious consideration should be given when Constitutional rights are reviewed. Each constitutional right has helped shaped the fabric of our nation-politically and socially. This question does not lend itself to a simplistic answer; however, you can be assured that constitutional rights enumerated specifically and those which are arguably included are analyzed closely with consideration of precedent and the common law.
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?
Jurists are required to consider the constitutional rights of parents and children as well as the statutory law in place to make decisions regarding any issue for consideration.
What principles should guide a court’s analysis of whether your state’s constitution gives terminally ill patients a right to assisted suicide?
As jurists we are required to examine all the constitutional principles and statutory law to analyze these issues.
Would you describe your judicial philosophy as originalist, living constitutionalist, or something else?
I have always refused to allow myself to be relegated to a specific philosophy. I am a jurist who follows the law with an abiding commitment to the rights and principles of our constitution and the rule of law. This is what voters should expect from every jurist.
