On August 19, the Secretary of State of Georgia informed the Eleventh Circuit that he wishes to withdraw his request to reinstate Public Service Commissioner elections for the November 2022 ballot. The Eleventh Circuit approved his request. Therefore, the two races for Public Service Commission won’t be on the November 2022 ballot, even though the state already let the Democratic and Republican Parties nominate for this office in their 2022 primaries, and even though the Libertarian Party nominating convention had also nominated someone for one race.
The incumbent Commissioners will now serve additional time, even though their terms had been expiring.
The case is still alive, and future proceedings will determine whether the at-large elections violate the federal Voting Rights Act. But it seems likely that the U.S. District Court will rule in favor of district elections.
This event highlights the irrationality of the Georgia ballot access law relating to minor parties. When the office was elected statewide, the Libertarian Party was allowed to have its nominees on the November ballot with no petition. But assuming that in the future, this office will be elected on a district basis, any Libertarian who wants to run (or the nominee of any other third party) will need about 70,000 signatures. Yet the duties of the office have not changed. Perhaps this ludicrous aspect of Georgia ballot access law can be mentioned in the U.S. Supreme Court pleadings in Cowen v Rafflesperger, the Libertarian pending ballot access case. 22-101.
Commies win again – more ANTI-Democracy gerrymander districts.
15 Amdt subverted even more.
https://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2022-08-19-appellants-motion-to-withdraw-emergency-motion-to-stay.pdf
GA surrenders to commies.
Would at-large elections violate the Voting Rights Act if an alternative voting method, such as RCV, approval or cumulative voting, were used? Are there any rulings on that?
I seem to recall that there have been cases in which judges have allowed at-large elections to proceed if cumulative voting were used.
This issue could have an impact on whether multi-member districts can be used in legislative elections. IMO, it has gotten to the point in legislative elections that the outcome in most such elections is predictable ahead of time because of plurality voting in gerrymandered, single member districts. But, this seems to be preferred by judges, so long as enough districts are set up to assure the election of ethnically minority candidates. The effort to allow better representation of minorities has the perverse effect of locking most legislative races for one party or the other.
I like district elections better, and I am a conservative. Go Dawgs!
It’s interesting to note that the US Constitution does not require that Representatives be elected by district, and that up until about 1850 several states elected their Congressional delegations at-large until Congress passed a law requiring elections by district.
Gerrymander districts –
AUTOMATIC ANTI-Democracy minority rule systems since 1200s/1600s/1776 —
1/2 or less votes x 1/2 rigged cracked/packed districts = 1/4 or less CONTROL.
Super-worse primaries since 1888-1890.
3 USA gerrymander systems – Reps / Sens / EC.
ALL 50 States – state and local legis bodies.
TOTAL R-O-T — nonstop Stalin/Hitler extremist monarch schemes/plots.
Pending Civil WAR II as in actual 1860-1866 Civil WAR I.
Math brain dead courts and know-it-all media.
—-
NOOO primaries.
PR
APPV
TOTSOP
WZ – see also 1932 election after Constitution was subverted by NOOO re-apportionment after 1920 Census.
Many States had at large elections >>> commie takeover of USA Congress in 1933-1934 and mostly to 1994.
@WZ,
Federal judges have no authority to impose districts on any elective office, particularly state and local offices.