Cobb County Attorney Opines on Cityhood…’lawsuits should be dismissed’

It was music to the ears of many at the Vinings Cityhood town hall meeting after hearing that the County Attorney for Cobb believes that the lawsuit against cityhood should be dismissed…even if it is only for the moment.

In what was thought to be a bizarre move, the Cobb County Attorney’s office shared an opinion that the lawsuit challenging the legality of the Vinings cityhood referendum should be dismissed. Kiah, please update this on the site as new comments are included from Courtney. 

The Cobb County Attorney’s comments follow a series of lawsuits aimed at three of the four communities to stop their cityhood referendums from moving forward. The lawsuits alleged that the communities seeking cityhood improperly limited the powers of the proposed cities and that this would be a violation of the Georgia constitution’s principle of home rule. The attorneys’  comments should have a similar application as it relates to the other lawsuits, meaning they should also be dismissed. 

The County Attorney, who had been coy about an answer to this often asked question by citizens, did not appear at the recent ‘information meeting’ but instead provided a response via the communications manager that was shared with those in attendance. The message said:

“Cobb County has no legal authority to represent the interests of private citizens, however, its legal position in the Young v. Cobb County suit (the lawsuit challenging Vinings) is that it should be dismissed. Unless the referendum is passed, and HB 840 (the bill creating the city) becomes effective, there is not an active or justiciable dispute, as courts do not have jurisdiction to decide the merits of a constitutional challenge to proposed legislation.”

This message left many confused by Cobb’s new position, but those more astute with the process were able to explain it to the rest of us. The cityhood referendums have to pass before a lawsuit can be brought challenging its constitutionality. 

In essence, the lawyer suing to stop cityhood put the proverbial cart before the horse. A  legal dispute does not exist unless the referendum succeeds. Some say that in his excitement and urgency to file suit, the attorney leading the lawsuits, Allen Lightcap, apparently did not understand the law. Lightcap believes he is right and referred to a 1977 Georgia Supreme Court decision which found a referendum was, in fact, able to be contested in court prior to the vote.

A judge needs to rule on the dismissal request by the County or whether Lightcap’s lawsuit will be allowed to go forward. Everyone is awaiting the scheduling of a first hearing in the case, which will come before Cobb Superior Court Chief Judge Robert Leonard.

If judge Leonard rules against Lightcap, voters in these communities will be able to vote yes or no on cityhood. The lawsuit and ultimate fight would begin after cityhood passes. If no cityhood referendum passes, the lawsuit becomes moot. 

In a show of solidarity, a joint statement praising the County Attorney’s opinion was issued  from the three cityhood groups — Vinings, Lost

Mountain, and East Cobb. As it has been throughout this process, there is no word on how all of this impacts cityhood for Mableton. 

For now, we will have to wait for May 25th, the day after the primary election, to determine if the lawsuits will resurface.