Georgia's Very Own Megathread!

[skbl17]

A newly-introduced bipartisan bill, HB 200, would allow cities to adopt and use instant-runoff voting for municipal elections. The bill gets its first subcommittee hearing this Tuesday.

From the AJC:

“This is a starting point as a test if cities want to do it,” said state Rep. Joseph Gullett, a Republican from Dallas who introduced House Bill 200 on Wednesday. “If they’re successful at it, we’ll have an idea what this could look like in the state of Georgia. If it’s a terrible process, we’ll know that, too.”

About 58% of Georgia voters supported eliminating runoffs after general elections, making the candidate who receives the most votes the winner, according to a poll last month by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Several cities have proposed ranked-choice voting for municipal elections, including Atlanta and Woodstock, Gullett said.

So far, no bills have been proposed to adjust the runoff threshold or eliminate runoffs at the state level.

Well the bill was not discussed in subcommittee today; we'll see how the bill proceeds.

[skbl17]

Well, the Democrats have introduced legislation (HB 419) to reduce the threshold to avoid a runoff from 50% to 45%. Unlike the bipartisan "let cities run IRV elections if they wish" bill (HB 200) I mentioned earlier, this bill solely has Democratic cosponsors.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Attorney General Chris Carr has told state Republicans that he plans to run for governor in 2026.

[Sir Mohamed]

Attorney General Chris Carr has told state Republicans that he plans to run for governor in 2026.

If Biden is still in the WH, he'd have a good shot, I guess? Even with Ossoff winning reelection.

[Del Tachi]

Attorney General Chris Carr has told state Republicans that he plans to run for governor in 2026.

Expected move.

Endorsed! xDelTachi

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

Attorney General Chris Carr has told state Republicans that he plans to run for governor in 2026.

If Biden is still in the WH, he'd have a good shot, I guess? Even with Ossoff winning reelection.

I have an inkling Georgia could be a state where democrats win federal elections for a decade while on the state level they struggle to win statewide office. If you told me the next democratic governor of Georgia was elected in 2030 I’d believe you

[skbl17]

The 11th Circuit overturned a court ruling mandating that Public Service Commission seats be elected on a district basis, so (barring an appeal to SCOTUS and an unlikely reversal of the 11th Circuit) PSC seats will continue to be elected statewide.

As the article points out, it's possible that GA voters will have three PSC elections on the ballot next year - the one seat originally scheduled for 2024 and the seats that were up in 2022 (before those elections were cancelled). If that ends up being the case, this would mean that the Dems could win a PSC majority if they swept the races - the current PSC is a GOP monopoly, and has been since 2006 - but I find that incredibly unlikely. PSC races don't get a lot of attention, and downballot lag and incumbency goes really far once you get that far down the ballot.

[Progressive Pessimist]

The headlines write themselves if he loses: "Carr Crashes."

[skbl17]

Back to county redistricting: the majority-Dem Cobb County Commission will try to amend the commission district map passed by the General Assembly. The Commission cites the home rule provisions in the state constitution, allowing counties and municipalities to amend legislation pertaining to their specific jurisdiction (a "local bill").

Typically, redistricting for county and city governing bodies (commissions, school boards, etc.) is treated as local legislation and passed in coordination between local officials and the county's General Assembly delegation. However, for the most recent session the General Assembly opted to draw their own maps in a few (largely Dem-leaning) counties like Cobb and Gwinnett.

Under the new maps (and assuming Cobb is not successful in this maneuver) is that Cobb's Dem majority will be left untouched (3-2), but one Dem commissioner (Jerica Richardson) will be drawn out of her seat and another GOP district will be shored up. In Gwinnett, the Dem monopoly (5-0) will give way to a 4-1 majority for at least one or two terms, as one district was redrawn to be more Republican.

If Cobb is successful, the Commission will just pass the map originally proposed by the Dem-controlled General Assembly delegation, which was mostly a least-change map. I don't know if Gwinnett will try something similar, but given the time left before the midterm election, I don't think they will.

Bringing this thread back from the dead, there has been movement on this. A few days ago, the Georgia Supreme Court unanimously reversed a lower court ruling that struck down the Commission-drawn map as unconstitutional. As such, the Commission-drawn map remains in effect, at least for now. Indeed, early voting is taking place on the Commission lines, not the lines passed by the General Assembly (the "Act 562" lines as referred to in the Court's opinion).

Despite the county not losing the Floam case, the Court states that they did not rule on the merits, merely that the Floams were not eligible for declaratory relief. In fact, in my reading of the opinion it seems as if the Court is all but begging for some eligible party to obtain declaratory judgment on the merits, even naming the county Board of Elections and Registration as a party that would qualify:

In its amicus brief, the Cobb County Board of Elections and Registration (“BOER”) pointed to its own uncertainty as to whether the BOC Amendment was valid and asked for some resolution in time for it implement a redistricting map before the qualifying period that began on March 2, 2024. Given BOER’s duties in administering elections, that is the kind of uncertainty that would support a declaratory judgment. But BOER is not a party to this case, and the Floams cannot use a nonparty’s uncertainty to establish their own standing.

Justice Charlie Bethel filed a concurring opinion, agreeing with the conclusion reached by the Court on this specific case while warning of the pitfalls should the overall issue be left unresolved:

I offer the following illustration not to suggest what will happen, but only to show what might happen, assuming Cobb’s merits argument ultimately fails. It is clear that Cobb has asserted a novel application of the constitutional Home Rule powers that has never been decided by this Court, though the only Georgia court to reach the merits of Cobb’s argument found it untenable. We concluded today that the present action is not the proper vehicle by which to litigate this issue. But sooner or later, a proper party will almost certainly bring a proper claim, and a court will decide the novel issue raised in this case. A review of the record and the current posture of the Cobb County Commission suggests that an adverse
merits decision for Cobb could feasibly result in at least one current Commission member to be found to lack residency in his or her district. And Cobb is currently conducting elections for two seats under the contested maps. Litigation during and even after those elections seems inevitable. But litigation takes time, and it is easily within the realm of possibility that several months could pass before such litigation is concluded, particularly if Cobb continues to pursue what could be interpreted as a deliberately leisurely litigation strategy.

Indeed, depending on the timeline of any future litigation, it would not be inconceivable for Cobb to find itself with three vacant Commission seats and the Commission unable to form a quorum, leaving its citizens without duly elected representation. To avoid these possibilities, it seems to me that Cobb has an interest in reaching a merits-based resolution as quickly as possible. I urge Cobb to act with all due haste in securing finality.

For their part, it seems like Cobb County isn't in any particular hurry to "secure finality"; according to the AP article, county spokesperson (and former local TV news reporter) Ross Cavitt stated that it's unlikely the county will take action - "The county attorney’s office does not believe there is a proper action to file."