DOJ Seeks Judge Ross' Recusal in Georgia Voter-List Case Over Willis Event Attendance
Updated
Updated · The Associated Press · May 30
DOJ Seeks Judge Ross' Recusal in Georgia Voter-List Case Over Willis Event Attendance
10 articles · Updated · The Associated Press · May 30
Justice Department lawyers asked U.S. District Judge Eleanor Ross to step aside from a Georgia voter-list lawsuit and sought to delay a Wednesday hearing while the recusal request is considered.
The filing argues Ross's reported attendance at an event honoring Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis creates an appearance of bias in an election-related case tied to President Donald Trump.
DOJ is relying on media reports identifying Ross as the unnamed 11th Circuit judge who received a private reprimand, later upheld on May 22, for attending a partisan event and other misconduct.
Ross is overseeing DOJ's suit against Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, who says state law bars release of voters' confidential personal information and that only the public voter roll was provided in December.
The dispute lands amid wider fallout from Georgia's 2020 election battles: Willis's racketeering case against Trump was dismissed in November after an appeals court found an appearance of impropriety.
Who truly has the final say on protecting your personal voter information?
When does a judge's personal conduct require them to step away from a case?
DOJ Demands Judge Ross Step Aside in Georgia Voter List Lawsuit Over Bias Concerns and Partisan Event
Overview
The U.S. Department of Justice has asked Judge Eleanor Ross to step aside from the Georgia voter-list case, citing concerns about her impartiality. The DOJ points to Judge Ross’s attendance at a partisan event honoring Fani Willis, who is prosecuting Donald Trump for alleged election interference, arguing this creates an appearance of bias. While the DOJ’s filing also mentions past allegations of improper conduct and false statements by Judge Ross, these are not the main reason for the recusal request. The case highlights the importance of judicial neutrality in politically sensitive legal battles.