Opponents say these charters are misleading to voters. Cityhood supporters use the disputed charters on the campaign trail as evidence that these cities would be limited in scope, with guardrails that would prevent the cities from adding new public services and increasing taxes.
“I am very pleased that the voters within the proposed city limits recognized the facts and voted based on that,” said Dora Locklear, the leader of anti-cityhood group West Cobb Advocate, which brought one of the lawsuits.
“There’s still the unconstitutionality of this ‘city lite’ model and the bait and switch that it provides to the voters,” she added. “That still needs to be addressed, either in the courts or at the state legislative level.”
An attorney for the cityhood movements previously told the AJC that the charters are constitutional because they don’t actually take away any powers from city leaders. Instead, they simply provide the initial setup for the cities, and can be changed later by elected officials if they choose.