Georgia Supreme Court blocks GOP from controlling primary candidates
- Georgia's Supreme Court rejected an appeal from the Catoosa County Republican Party to exclude four candidates from the GOP primary ballot.
- The court ruled that the party acted too slowly to challenge a lower court's decision that mandated the candidates' inclusion.
- This ruling underscores the importance of allowing voters to decide primary candidates rather than letting party officials control the process.
On Tuesday, Georgia's Supreme Court unanimously dismissed an appeal from the Catoosa County Republican Party, which sought to exclude four candidates from the GOP primary ballot due to perceived ideological differences. The court ruled that the party acted too late to challenge a lower court's decision that mandated the candidates' inclusion. Presiding Justice Nels Peterson emphasized the importance of respecting election outcomes and the need for parties to address disputes before elections occur. The controversy arose when Catoosa County Republican officials attempted to bar Steven Henry and incumbent Larry Black from running for county commission chair, as well as incumbents Jeffrey Long and Vanita Hullander from seeking reelection. Despite the party's objections, a superior court judge ordered the candidates to be placed on the ballot, even threatening party officials with fines for noncompliance. Ultimately, Long and Henry secured the Republican nomination, while Black and Hullander lost their bids. The case highlights ongoing tensions within the Republican Party regarding candidate eligibility and the role of county parties in primary elections. Justice Charlie Bethel noted that the court may eventually need to address whether local parties can impose additional rules beyond state law. This situation reflects broader challenges in a state with open primaries and no party registration, complicating the identification of true party members. In a related federal case, a judge dismissed the Catoosa County GOP's claim that being forced to include candidates violated their associational rights, asserting that voters should have the authority to decide primary candidates. This ruling reinforces the principle that elections should empower citizens rather than allow party insiders to dictate candidate selection.