Lawyers made the first arguments in the pending lawsuits over Cobb County’s disputed electoral map on Friday afternoon.
Cobb County Superior Court Judge Ann Harris will not hear arguments over the merits of the case until she first rules on the county’s motion to dismiss the suit challenging its authority to change district maps passed by the state Legislature.
Democrats on the Cobb Commission took it upon themselves to change the map passed by Republicans in the Legislature that drew a sitting commissioner out of her district mid-term. Cobb argues in the novel case that it had the right to do so under the Home Rule provision of the state Constitution.
The hearing lasted more than three hours in a courtroom full of spectators.
Elizabeth Monyak, an attorney with the county’s legal team, said the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the case forward, failed to show how their rights were violated and could be motivated by partisanship.
“A court is not there to vindicate political partisan interests,” Monyak said. “The plaintiffs may have preferred that map; perhaps they, for all I know, maybe the plaintiffs were happy that a sitting commissioner was drawn out … but that’s not cognizable harm. That’s political partisan preference.”
Ray Smith, the attorney representing plaintiffs Keli Gambrill and David and Catherine Floam, argued that the map is illegal and does present “a harm, not only to my clients but to all voters of Cobb County.”
Gambrill, a sitting Republican county commissioner, filed the lawsuits earlier this year in her capacity as a resident against her fellow board members after the Democratic majority passed its own map last year to preserve Commissioner Jerica Richardson’s seat. Richardson is a Democrat. The Floams, who are also Cobb County residents, were later added as plaintiffs.
Gambrill declined to comment after the hearing.
Smith said his clients will be harmed when future elections are held under the county-passed map.
“The Floams will be voting in a district they were unlawfully placed in,” he said. “They have a right to vote in elections that are lawfully conducted. They will be represented by an official based on an illegal map.”
The ongoing efforts to take down the county’s map have hit several snags since the board changed it in October 2022, and commissioners and residents alike appear eager to have the issue resolved. If the judge agrees with the county and dismisses the lawsuit, that could serve as yet another roadblock those opposed to the county’s unprecedented move have faced in getting answers to the constitutional question.
“They are voters, and they have a right to understand that they have a legal map,” Smith said. “Our argument is: (the Board of Commissioners) didn’t follow the law. That should be sufficient, your honor.”
Attorney General Chris Carr and other state officials have decried the move as unconstitutional. In a legal brief filed in May, Carr argued that the county’s amendment to its district map overruling the state Legislature “contravenes the state’s reapportionment law, is beyond the commissioners’ power, and is void.”
But before the judge can rule on that, she has to determine if the plaintiffs have standing — meaning they must prove they have been harmed.
“I can’t just go to court and ask somebody to say: ‘This is a terrible law,’” Harris said.
About the Author
