The Georgia Election Case: Justice Delayed or Justice Denied?

The Facts of the Case

The Georgia election interference case against former President Donald Trump has taken another extraordinary turn with Peter J. Skandalakis, executive director of the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council of Georgia, appointing himself as the new prosecutor. This development comes after Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis was disqualified from the case by the Georgia Court of Appeals due to a “significant appearance of impropriety” stemming from her romantic relationship with special prosecutor Nathan Wade, whom she had hired for the case.

Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee had given Skandalakis until Friday to find a replacement prosecutor or allow the case to be dismissed. Skandalakis revealed that he contacted “several” other prosecutors who declined to take up the case before making the decision to appoint himself. He recently received 101 banker boxes of documents and an 8-terabyte hard drive containing the complete investigative file, stating that he hasn’t had sufficient time to complete his review of the massive evidence.

The case originated from a Fulton County grand jury indictment in 2023 against Trump and 18 others who allegedly formed a conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia. The alleged scheme included Trump’s famous call to Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger asking him to “find” the missing votes needed to win, plans to submit a bogus slate of electors, a harassment campaign against Fulton County poll workers, and a voting systems breach in Coffee County.

Context and Background

This case represents the last criminal case still pending against Donald Trump, making it potentially the final opportunity for criminal accountability regarding the efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Four of the alleged co-conspirators have already pleaded guilty and agreed to testify against Trump and the other defendants.

The case has been mired in controversy from the beginning, with the most significant complication arising from the relationship between Willis and Wade. The revelation of their romantic involvement and the financial arrangements surrounding Wade’s hiring created what the appeals court determined to be an unacceptable appearance of impropriety, ultimately leading to Willis’s disqualification.

Skandalakis is no stranger to this case, having previously intervened when Willis was disqualified from prosecuting Lt. Gov. Burt Jones, who served as an alternate elector after Trump lost the 2020 election. In that instance, Skandalakis decided not to bring criminal charges against Jones, ruling that he acted within the scope of his office.

The Constitutional Crisis Unfolding

What we are witnessing in Georgia represents nothing less than a constitutional crisis playing out in slow motion. The fundamental principle that no one is above the law—a bedrock of American democracy—is being tested in ways we haven’t seen since Watergate. The repeated delays, procedural obstacles, and now the self-appointment of a prosecutor after others declined create the dangerous perception that justice might be elusive for those with sufficient power and resources.

The Georgia case is particularly significant because it involves state charges, which a presidential pardon cannot reach. This was supposed to be the accountability mechanism that couldn’t be short-circuited by political considerations. Yet here we are, watching as the case hangs by a thread, dependent on the decisions of a single appointed prosecutor who must navigate enormous political pressure and practical constraints.

Professor Anthony Michael Kreis of Georgia State University raises crucial questions about how Skandalakis will proceed. The practical reality is that Skandalakis, unlike an elected district attorney, is in a temporary appointment and unlikely to “hang around for years waiting to try Donald Trump.” This creates a genuine risk that the charges against Trump may never see the light of day in a courtroom, regardless of the evidence gathered.

The Broader Pattern of Accountability Avoidance

This development in Georgia fits into a broader pattern where legal accountability for Trump appears to be receding rather than advancing. The Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith dropped federal election interference and classified documents cases after Trump’s 2024 election victory. A New York appeals court overturned a nearly $500 million civil penalty against Trump, though leaving the fraud finding in place. Trump is appealing his New York conviction involving hush money payments and seeking Supreme Court intervention in the E. Jean Carroll case.

While each of these legal developments has its own procedural and legal rationale, collectively they create a disturbing pattern where the most powerful among us appear to operate under a different set of rules. The message being sent to the American public is deeply corrosive to our democratic norms: if you have enough money, power, and willingness to delay, you can avoid accountability indefinitely.

The Fundamental Question of Equal Justice

At its core, this case raises the most fundamental question about our justice system: does equal justice under law truly exist for all citizens, or do we have a two-tiered system where the powerful and connected face different consequences than ordinary citizens?

Imagine if an ordinary citizen faced similar allegations of election interference. Would their case be delayed for years through procedural maneuvers? Would prosecutors decline to take the case? Would the resolution depend on the personal decisions of a temporarily appointed official? The answers to these questions are obvious, and that disparity should concern every American who believes in the principle of equal justice.

The evidence in this case, according to the article, fills 101 banker boxes and an 8-terabyte hard drive. This suggests an extensive investigation that presumably uncovered significant evidence worthy of prosecution. Yet the pursuit of justice is being hampered not by the weakness of the evidence, but by procedural complications and political realities.

The Dangerous Precedent Being Set

If this case ultimately fails to move forward, it will set a dangerous precedent that could echo through American history. Future would-be authoritarians will look at this case and understand that they too can attempt to overturn election results with relative impunity. The deterrent effect of potential prosecution will be severely diminished, if not eliminated entirely.

Our democracy depends on certain norms and understandings—that election results will be respected, that legal processes will be followed, and that those who attempt to subvert the will of the people will face consequences. Each time we allow these norms to be violated without meaningful accountability, we weaken the foundation of our republic.

The Path Forward

Peter Skandalakis now faces one of the most consequential decisions any prosecutor could face. He must weigh the practical realities against the fundamental necessity of upholding the rule of law. He must consider not just the immediate political implications but the long-term health of American democracy.

The best course would be for Skandalakis to move forward with the cases against the other co-defendants while determining the appropriate timing for addressing the charges against Trump. This would demonstrate that the justice system continues to function regardless of political pressures and that the extensive evidence gathered will not be ignored.

American democracy is resilient, but it is not indestructible. It requires constant vigilance and a commitment to principles over personalities. The Georgia election interference case has become a litmus test for whether our institutions can withstand the pressures of our hyper-partisan age. The world is watching to see if America still believes that no one—not even a former president—is above the law.

We must demand that our justice system functions without fear or favor. The future of our democracy may depend on it.