ATLANTA – A Fulton County Superior Court judge dismissed a lawsuit Wednesday seeking to force Gov. Brian Kemp to schedule an administrative hearing on whether to remove three members of the State Election Board.
The ruling by Judge Ural Glanville sided with a legal opinion Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr released last month asserting that the plaintiffs in the case don’t have the legal authority to make such a demand.
State Sen. Nabilah Islam Parkes, D-Duluth; Cathy Woolard, a former chair of the Fulton County Board of Registration & Elections; and Democratic Senate candidate Randall Mangham filed suit after the board’s three Republican members – Janice Johnston, Janelle King, and former state Sen. Rick Jeffares – adopted controversial changes to state election rules that, among other things, would empower local election officials to delay or refuse to certify election results and require ballots to be hand counted on Election Night.
Democrats say the chaos and uncertainty such changes could create following the Nov. 5 presidential election could lead to former President Donald Trump capturing Georgia’s 16 electoral votes even if Vice President Kamala Harris has won more of the state’s popular vote.
Republicans have denied plotting to help Trump and have defended the rules changes as a way to ensure the election is fair and accurate.
After the lawsuit was filed, Kemp asked Carr for his opinion on whether the phrase “upon charges being filed” in state law means a citizen can present information about a state board member that might constitute formal charges.
“It is my official opinion that … the phrase … does not mean that a citizen can simply submit information to the governor and trigger the hearing process contemplated,” Carr wrote in response.
On Wednesday, Islam Parkes said she was disappointed with the ruling and vowed to appeal.
“For decades, prior governors have initiated hearings based on citizen complaints,” she said. “Governor Kemp should not be allowed to make up his own rules.”
Kara Murray, a spokesperson for Carr, defended the decision.
“The plaintiffs were legally, factually and constitutionally wrong,” she said. “While others may try to use our court system to gain headlines, we will continue to follow the law in our representation.”