Too close for comfort: Lawmaker asks judge to step aside in lawsuit to overturn election

The intensity surrounding the recent statehouse elections continues to escalate, shifting from the ballot box to the courtroom. State Rep. Juandalynn Givan, who fell to challenger Alicia Escott Lumpkin in the Democratic primary on May 19, is now pushing to have the judge overseeing her election challenge removed from the case.

Givan Targets Judge Over Alleged Conflicts

In a formal filing, Givan has petitioned Jefferson County Circuit Court Judge Chuck Price to recuse himself. Her motion centers on concerns regarding the judge's impartiality, specifically citing his personal ties to Birmingham Mayor Randall Woodfin and other city officials who may serve as potential witnesses. Givan’s filing also highlights Price’s professional history as a former Birmingham municipal court judge and mentions his alleged frequent visits to a local tavern alongside city figures.

“The issue is not whether Judge Price is actually biased. Rather, the issue is whether an objective member of the public, fully informed of these circumstances, would reasonably question the court’s impartiality,” Givan noted in her request, arguing that these overlapping relationships create an appearance of partiality.

The Core of the Dispute

Givan’s lawsuit hinges on the Mayor/Council Act, a state law governing Birmingham’s administration that restricts mayoral appointees from seeking elected office. Lumpkin, who secured the win over Givan after 16 years of Givan’s incumbency, previously served as the city’s director of process improvement. With an endorsement from Mayor Woodfin, Lumpkin maintains that she resigned from her city post and is eligible to serve; however, Givan is demanding concrete evidence of that resignation.

Defense Fires Back

Lumpkin’s attorney, Barry Ragsdale, was quick to reject the recusal motion, labeling it a “naked attempt at judge-shopping.” Ragsdale argued that Givan was already aware of the judge’s background and failed to raise objections in a timely manner, effectively missing the window to challenge his appointment.

The request comes amid notable friction between the court and the plaintiff. During initial hearings, Judge Price openly questioned the legal standing of the lawsuit and the necessity of Givan’s requested subpoenas. He also expressed skepticism toward the Mayor-Council Act itself, calling it “troubling in itself for a myriad of reasons.”

Despite these comments, Ragsdale maintains that the judge’s critical stance is based on a review of provided briefs rather than any predetermined bias. “The fact that this court expressed its judicially-formed preliminary opinions of the parties’ arguments at the hearing does not mean that it had predetermined the outcome,” Ragsdale wrote, suggesting that the judge’s feedback actually provided Givan with a clearer roadmap to address the court's concerns.