Art. I, Sec. II, Para. V. What acts void.

Ga. Const. 1983, Art. 1, § 2, Para. 5; Ga. L. 2020, p. 917, § 1/HR 1023.

The constitutional amendment (Ga. L. 2020, p. 917, § 1/HR 1023), which amended this Paragraph, by designating the existing language as subparagraph (a) and adding subparagraph (b), was ratified at the general election held on November 3, 2020.

For article with annual survey on local government, see 73 Mercer L. Rev. 193 (2021).

“Action”.

“Action” as used in Ga. Const., 1983, Art. I, Sec. II, Para. V referred to an entire case or lawsuit. Because plaintiffs’ suit named a defendant for whom a waiver was not provided by this paragraph, the Constitution required the suit be dismissed. State v. Sass Group, 315 Ga. 893, 885 S.E.2d 761, 2023 Ga. LEXIS 64 (2023).

Application of Roe-era precedent.

— The Georgia Supreme Court is not at liberty to apply Roe-era precedent in determining whether the LIFE Act (Georgia Living Infants Fairness and Equality Act (LIFE), 2019 Ga. Laws 711 (2019 Ga. HB 481)) was void ab initio. State of Ga. v. SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective, 317 Ga. 528, 894 S.E.2d 1, 2023 Ga. LEXIS 234 (2023). Action must be brought exclusively against State of Georgia or relevant

local government.

When plaintiffs rely on Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. II, Para. V’s waiver of sovereign immunity, they must comply strictly with its requirements and bring the action exclusively against and in the name of the State of Georgia or the relevant local government, and by failing to name the State of Georgia or relevant local governments as defendants, plaintiffs did not comply with Paragraph V. Lovell v. Raffensperger, 318 Ga. 48, 897 S.E.2d 440, 2024 Ga. LEXIS 5, cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 2689, 219 L. Ed. 2d 1302, 2024 U.S. LEXIS 2767 (2024). By naming defendants as the Secretary of the State of Georgia by name, not the State of Georgia, and local boards of election and the board members, not the relevant counties, plaintiffs’ failed to comply with Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. II, Para. V, and plaintiffs’ lawsuits were properly dismissed. Lovell v. Raffensperger, 318 Ga. 48, 897 S.E.2d 440, 2024 Ga. LEXIS 5, cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 2689, 219 L. Ed. 2d 1302, 2024 U.S. LEXIS 2767 (2024). Since plaintiffs named both a county and a private entity as defendants, the entire lawsuit was barred by sovereign immunity because plaintiffs violated the exclusivity requirement of Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. II, Para. V, therefore, sovereign immunity was not properly waived, and the entire lawsuit had to be dismissed. South River Watershed Alliance v. DeKalb County, 373 Ga. App. 285, 908 S.E.2d 204, 2024 Ga. App. LEXIS 413 (2024), overruled in part, Warbler Invs., LLC v. City of Social Circle, 321 Ga. 125, 913 S.E.2d 674, 2025 Ga. LEXIS 50 (2025). In a zoning case, the trial court properly dismissed the complaint because, on its face, the landowner impermissibly brought claims for substantive relief against the County Board of Commissioners and the county, thus violating the exclusivity provision of Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. II, Para. V. Tussahaw Reserves, LLC v. Butts County, 373 Ga. App. 322, 908 S.E.2d 292, 2024 Ga. App. LEXIS 433 (2024). Clause did not grant action against

state officials otherwise immune.

Suit by physicians against state officials alleging that O.C.G.A. § 31-9B-1 et seq., regulating abortions, violated the state constitution, was barred by sovereign immunity under Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. II, Para. IX, because there was no consent to such a suit. The Due Process Clause, Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Para. I, did not provide a private remedy for its enforcement, and the Judicial Review Clause, Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. II, Para. V, did not conflict with sovereign immunity. Lathrop v. Deal, 301 Ga. 408, 801 S.E.2d 867, 2017 Ga. LEXIS 529 (2017). Determination of Constitutionality 1. In General

Source of constitutional meaning.

— The United States Constitution, not the United States Supreme Court, is the source of the Constitution’s meaning; the United States Supreme Court has no power to amend the Constitution through interpretation; and the text of the United States Constitution has not been amended since the LIFE Act (Georgia Living Infants Fairness and Equality Act (LIFE), 2019 Ga. Laws 711 (2019 Ga. HB 481)) was enacted. Thus, the United States Constitution means today what it meant when the LIFE Act was enacted in 2019, even if the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution has changed. As a result, the trial court erred in concluding that, even though the LIFE Act complies with the United States Constitution today, the LIFE Act violated the United States Constitution when the LIFE Act was enacted. State of Ga. v. SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective, 317 Ga. 528, 894 S.E.2d 1, 2023 Ga. LEXIS 234 (2023).

O.C.G.A. § 16-5-9 violated confrontation right.

O.C.G.A. § 16-15-9 was declared unconstitutional on the statute’s face under the Sixth Amendment’s confrontation clause to the extent that the statute authorized the admission of the convictions of non-testifying non-parties as evidence of a criminal street gang; the exclusion of other alleged gang members’ convictions in the defendant’s trial was upheld. State v. Jefferson, 302 Ga. 435, 807 S.E.2d 387, 2017 Ga. LEXIS 931 (2017). 3. Procedure Despite application of waiver of sovereign immunity, action barred by

res judicata.

In a second suit challenging a county’s ordinance regulating adult establishments, although the constitutional waiver of sovereign immunity contained in Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. II, Para. V, applied to the store’s lawsuit, its suit was barred by res judicata because the constitutional issues it raised could have been raised in defending against the county’s earlier counterclaim, which was adjudicated on the merits. Starship Enterprises of Atlanta, Inc. v. Gwinnett County, 319 Ga. 293, 903 S.E.2d 55, 2024 Ga. LEXIS 142 (2024).

Curing failure to comply with naming requirement.

Action brought pursuant to Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. II, Para. V(b)(1) that does not comply with the naming requirement of Paragraph V(b)(2) may be cured by dropping or adding parties using the procedure established by O.C.G.A. § 9-11-21, and dismissal is not mandated. Warbler Invs., LLC v. City of Social Circle, 321 Ga. 125, 913 S.E.2d 674, 2025 Ga. LEXIS 50 (2025).