Clark Hill Successfully Ends Challenge to Georgia Public Service Commission Elections

Atlanta attorneys Bryan Tyson, Bryan Jacoutot, and Diane LaRoss successfully represented Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in a challenge to the state’s method of electing its Public Service Commission.

After a lengthy litigation that began in 2020, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ruled on March 7 to deny the plaintiffs’ efforts to amend its complaint under the Voting Rights Act.

In July 2020, a group of Black voters filed suit against Secretary Raffensperger in an effort to change Georgia’s Public Service Commission elections from a statewide contest to a districting method similar to congressional or state legislative elections.

For more than 100 years, Public Service Commissioners have been elected by way of a statewide vote. The primary purpose of the commission, which is created by constitutional provision, is to oversee energy pricing and distribution statewide.

“Plaintiffs’ argument was that voting for each commissioner of a statewide commission on a statewide basis unlawfully diluted the votes of Black Georgians, and that the Voting Rights Act required it to be districted similarly to a legislative body,” Jacoutot said.

“We argued that, because the PSC is a unique constitutional entity, it is lawful for each member of a statewide commission to be elected on a statewide basis,” Tyson added.

The trial court initially disagreed and concluded that single-member districting was an acceptable remedy. But the Eleventh Circuit reversed on appeal, concluding that “the plaintiffs had failed to propose a viable remedy” within the contours of Georgia’s chosen form of government.

Following the appeal, the plaintiffs’ petition for review by the U.S. Supreme Court was denied, which led to an attempt to amend their complaint to seek a new remedy. But the trial court denied their Motion to Amend.

“In this challenge, plaintiffs were aware of the possible pitfalls of relying solely on single-member districting as a remedial theory. Dissatisfaction with the results of that decision is not a basis for the court to grant a do-over,” the trial court wrote in its March 7 ruling.