WHO IS REPUBLICAN ENOUGH?
Federal judge hears arguments in a Catoosa County case that may have statewide political consequences
A move by the Catoosa County Republican Party to restrict candidates they don’t feel represent the party’s values will be the first such case in Georgia to be tested in the courtroom.
U.S. District Court Judge William Ray heard the Catoosa County GOP arguments Wednesday, April 17, in Rome, Ga., in a case against the Catoosa County Board of Elections and Voter Registration. The GOP is essentially requesting that he overrule a superior court judge’s order to qualify candidates the party didn’t feel reflected its “political positions or values.”
Overall, the arguments — which often hinged on esoteric points of legal process — came back time and time again to the right of a political party to choose what candidates run under their flag.
The case is representative of a move by far-right subgroups within the Georgia Republican Party — such as the Georgia Republican Assembly — to restrict which candidates get a valued “R” next to their name on the ballot in deeply conservative districts.
In general, local political parties qualify candidates who meet certain state rules, pay their fee and swear an oath of allegiance to the party. At this point, the GOP in Catoosa, Chattooga, Pickens and Whitfield counties also have enacted rules where an executive committee chooses who the party will — or will not — allow to run for office as a Republican.
The same procedure was proposed to the Georgia Republican Party during the convention by the attorney representing the Catoosa GOP, Jordan Johnson, but was not brought forward for debate.
But the Catoosa GOP was the first to actually block four candidates — three incumbents on the current county Board of Commissioners, plus a former commission chair — from qualifying as Republicans on the grounds they don’t adhere to the party’s platform.
During arguments Wednesday, April 17, Judge William Ray showed a healthy degree of skepticism for the proposal.
“(Voters) really decide who is Republican on election day,” Ray said.
The candidates are Catoosa County Commission Chair Larry Black, District 1 Commissioner Jeff Long, District 2 Commissioner Vanita Hullander and Steven Henry, a former commission chairman. All four candidates had previously won their seats running as Republicans.
The county party hit a roadblock in early March when Lookout Mountain Judicial Circuit Superior Court Judge Don Thompson ordered the candidates be allowed to qualify to run on the Republican primary ballot. The county Board of Elections then placed the four candidates back on the ballot as Republicans.
The Catoosa GOP filed a federal complaint stating the ruling is a violation of their First Amendment rights.
During the hearing, Judge Ray asked attorney Johnson why he should step in to rule on a case already making its way through the state appellate process.
“You raised (the issue), you didn’t get decision you think is correct,” Ray said. “Why do you get to go to two forums?... You had your shot, you didn’t win it.”
The Georgia Court of Appeals passed the Catoosa GOP’s appeal up the appellate ladder and stated the Georgia Supreme Court has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all cases of election contest.
That case is set for the August calendar. Early voting in the general primary is scheduled to begin April 29 and the primary to decide the party’s candidates will be held on May 21.
Arguing that there are different parties involved in the case, meaning the Catoosa County Board of Elections, Johnson said it’s a matter of timeliness. They would like the issue to be resolved prior to the May primary.
“I’m not oblivious to the fact that you won’t get a ruling from the (Georgia) Supreme Court (before the primary),” Ray said. However, Ray said any ruling by the state high court would set a precedent for similar challenges in the future.
Either way, Judge Ray stated, the plaintiffs won’t likely see a legal remedy to their perceived issue prior to the primary in May.
“I understand that time is of the essence,” Ray said, voicing his frustration that the case wasn’t filed earlier so any ruling would be more timely in resolving the issue.
Opponents to the Catoosa GOP’s case argued that voters in the primary decide who the party representatives should be and the move by the Catoosa party neuters that process. What’s more, they said, the case has already been decided by another court.
“They don’t get to come back here to have it heard again,” Christopher Harris, the attorney for Catoosa County Board of Elections, told the judge. “It’s our contention that the federal court should abstain.”
BALLOT QUESTIONS
Another question before the court concerned nonbinding ballot questions submitted by the party.
After the elections board placed the candidates on the ballot, the Catoosa GOP submitted three ballot questions. Two of the three were determined by the Georgia Secretary of State’s office as ineligible as “electioneering.” That essentially means a party or group is attempting to sway the elections process.
However, the secretary of state’s office then backed off and left it to the Catoosa elections board to decide whether to include the ballot questions.
In this case, the party asked if “anti-Trump democrats” should be allowed to qualify as Republicans because of a court order, and that the four candidates, who were listed by name, were not approved to run as Republicans.
By majority vote, the elections board chose not to include the two
ballot questions.
The Catoosa GOP’s contention is that neither the state nor the elections board has a say as to what political parties list as their ballot questions.
“The offices, candidates, and questions shall be listed on the ballot in the order,”
Johnson said, reading Georgia Rules and Regulations Section 183-1-12.07. “There is a ‘shall’ there.”
Often playing devil’s advocate during the proceedings, Judge Ray summed up the Catoosa GOP’s arguments.
“It seems your argument is that state law presented a process for speech and arbitrarily decided not to allow that speech,” the judge said.
While listening to the lawyer for the defendants,
the judge also posited that there’s the potential the ballot questions are subject to libel laws. When the Catoosa GOP attacks a candidate’s allegiance to that party in an extremely conservative district, the judge asked the attorney, could that be considered defamatory?
“When you call somebody an anti-Trump Democrat ... at least in Catoosa County, it’s a defamatory statement,” Harris said.