Home > Political Insider > Archives > 2008 > October > 30 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USGeorgia Supreme Court: Powell will stay on ballot in PSC race
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
In a unanimous decision, the Georgia Supreme Court today affirmed the place of Democrat Jim Powell on the Tuesday ballot as a candidate for Public Service Commission, rebuffing Secretary of State Karen Handel.
Handel had appealed a Fulton County Superior Court ruling that sided with Powell, and overturned her decision that found Powell ineligible to run based on his residency.
Powell is running against Republican Lauren “Bubba” McDonald, a former PSC chairman, for the open seat left by Republican Angela Speir. In an election already showing a surge of Democratic votes as a result of the presidential contest, the high court’s decision opens the opportunity for Democrats to reclaim one of five seats on the utility commission.
Handel argued that a homestead exemption Powell had claimed in Cobb County was irrefutable proof of legal residence. The PSC seat at issue requires residency in north Georgia, where Powell declared he was shifting his household.
The court found that the Georgia code lists 15 specifications for determining a residence, of which seven applied to Powell. , “The Secretary’s decision did not take into account any of the applicable rules other than the homestead exemption rule.
“We agree with the superior court that the secretary committed an error of law that authorizes reversal of the secretary’s decision,” wrote Justice Robert Benham, for the entire court.
Stan Wise, a 13-year member of the PSC, called for the Legislature to rethink the concept of district residency:
“The PSC residency law has only been on the books for ten years, yet there have already been three challenges heard by the Georgia Supreme Court [Mac Barber, Bobby Baker, and Jim Powell]. The law has proven to be both unenforceable through the judiciary and impractical considering some members maintain a district home and another near the office.
“While the initial intent of the law had some merit - that being to encourage more rural representation; the effect is that four-fifths of the population is prohibited from running for an open seat. The General Assembly should repeal the residency requirement.”
• Full election coverage: News, photos and more
• Get instant notification of Political Insider updates: Sign up on Twitter
Services »
Comments
By Jeff
October 30, 2008 2:36 PM | Link to this
Further proof of my ‘anyone else’ write in against Benham’s candidacy.
By John
October 30, 2008 3:00 PM | Link to this
Karen Handel gets slammed. Her blind partisanship has controlled every election decision she has made. One more reason why Georgians need to vote every Republican out of office. They have done their best since 2002 to ruin everything great that attracted people to Georgia in the first place.
By The Snark
October 30, 2008 3:11 PM | Link to this
Thank the Lord for an independent judiciary. This business of gaining power, and then changing the rules to stack the deck in favor of the ruling party, is for third world dictatorships.
By I'm Your Huckleberry
October 30, 2008 3:11 PM | Link to this
John,
Take a valium pal. Breathe deeply. You’ll feel better on Tuesday when your brother is elected. Your welfare checks are as good as in the mail.
John, you are a daisy. Can’t we still be friends?
By The Oddball
October 30, 2008 3:25 PM | Link to this
Jeff:
Before you get too made at Judge Benham, bear in mind that didn’t make that decision by himself. Every single member of the Supreme Court came to the same conclusion. That’s what “unanimous Court” means.
Before you assume it was just a political decision, consider the possibility that maybe … just maybe … this decision is the result of seven completely different judges applying the law fairly and impartially.
By Dave
October 30, 2008 3:50 PM | Link to this
Of course Stan Wise feels that way. He’s from Metro Atlanta, so that 4/5ths of the state population he speaks of has to run against him for a seat on the commission.
By Jeff
October 30, 2008 5:40 PM | Link to this
Oddball:
Benham, Sears, and a couple of others lost my vote about a year ago with their decision in the Wilson case. They proved then that they are nothing more than hacks for the Democratic Party and not Judges worrying about the Rule of Law in this Great State.
As I said, this decision is only further proof of that.
Oh, and I already voted that write in a few weeks ago, not in reaction to THIS particular decision.
By JerryT
October 30, 2008 9:02 PM | Link to this
Yeah, Sears is so partisan that she is retiring a year early so that Republican Sonny can appoint a replacement.
By The Oddball
October 31, 2008 10:38 AM | Link to this
Jeff, the Supreme Court WAS enforcing the rule of law.
Unless, of course, your definition of the rule of law is “whatever benefits the Republican Party at the moment.” That seems to be the definition that Karen Handel was using.
By Jeff
October 31, 2008 10:45 AM | Link to this
Oddball:
Did a jury decide whether or not he lived where he was supposed to live?
Because in this country, a JURY is supposed to determine guilt or innocence of a crime. Not a group of judges.
By Scott
November 3, 2008 3:40 PM | Link to this
That would be true, Jeff, but this wasn’t a criminal trial. However, a criminal trial may be next: namely tax evasion, by improperly taking the homestead exemption for what is now admittedly not his primary residence.