Cobb Superior Court judge rules lawsuit challenging home rule map can go forward without Commissioner Keli Gambrill

Several months ago, Cobb County Commissioner Keli Gambrill initiated two lawsuits against Cobb in her capacity as a private resident, rather than in her official role as commissioner. 

These legal actions included a complaint for declaratory relief aimed at securing a ruling on the constitutionality of a county-passed map and a writ of mandamus requesting the court to compel the county to reinstate a state-approved map while removing Commissioner Jerica Richardson from office. The basis for Gambrill’s request to have Richardson removed was her alleged lack of residence within District 2 as defined by the state-approved map.

In a recent development, Cobb Superior Court Judge Ann Harris issued a ruling that allowed the complaint to move forward, which denied Cobb County’s motion to dismiss the case. 

However, Harris also ruled to remove Gambrill from the case on the grounds of lacking standing. Harris said this decision was influenced by the fact that Gambrill had utilized her position as a commissioner in her legal arguments, which appeared to blur the line between her personal capacity as a resident and her official role in the matter. Harris wrote, “Several of (Gambrill’s) claims arise from her professional capacity and are not relevant in this suit.”

In ruling that the case can go forward, Judge Harris determined that David and Catherine Floam, who were added as plaintiffs to the lawsuit at a later stage, are residents of Cobb County living within the disputed area and indeed have legitimate grounds to sue the county. 

She noted that the resolution had resulted in a change of district for certain Cobb voters after they had already cast their votes in a different district. Harris emphasized that if the resolution is found to be unconstitutional, as advocated by the plaintiffs, then the Floams’ have identified a concrete, actual, and specific harm that affects them personally.

Cobb County has been operating in a state of uncertainty due to its home rule map, which was passed by the Democratic majority in what has been described as a novel legal maneuver. This legal dispute centers around the constitutionality of this electoral map and the potential consequences for voters like the Floams who have been directly impacted by it.

The county’s home rule map, led by Chairwoman Lisa Cupid, replaced a map that had been passed by a majority-Republican state Legislature that redrew Commissioner Richardson out of her district midway through her term. 

The county attorney contends that Cupid and the Democratic commissioners passing their own map was allowable under the home rule provision of the state constitution. 

This provision often grants local governments the authority to govern and make decisions autonomously within their own jurisdictions. Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr weighed in on the lawsuit with a contrary position, asserting that the county’s actions are unconstitutional and challenges the county’s interpretation of its authority under home rule provisions.

Legal experts had raised disputes over the interpretation of whether Richardson would have been required to vacate her position immediately or if she would have been forced out of the role after a subsequent election had the state-approved map been implemented. With Richardson eyeing a different office, this issue may become moot. 

Harris has allowed the constitutional question of whether counties have the authority to draw their own electoral maps to advance to arguments in a November hearing. She pointed out that neither party involved in the lawsuit has claimed a breach of procedure by the county. 

As a result, the county’s map is considered legally valid until a court rules otherwise. Harris emphasized that all currently seated commissioners were elected based on the district maps that were valid at the time of their elections, which reinforces Richardson’s position on the commission. 

The judge’s remarks highlight the legal complexity of the case and the need for a court ruling to determine the constitutionality and legality of the county’s home rule map. 

Decisions made by Judge Harris in this case became more complex with the revelation that the attorney for the remaining Plaintiffs’, Ray Smith III, was indicted on racketeering charges and 11 other counts related to former President Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election in Georgia. This development raises questions about the impact of the ongoing legal proceedings, conflicts of interest, and Smith’s continued legal representation in the case.