Camden County v. Sweatt et al

Camden County had been planning a commercial rocket launch site, and its Board of Commissioners approved buying land for it through resolutions. A group of registered voters, unhappy with the plan, filed a petition under Georgia's home rule rules asking the county's probate judge to call a special election so voters could repeal those resolutions. The probate judge found the petition valid and set the election, and voters ended up voting to repeal the resolutions. Before the vote, the county sued in superior court, asking for court orders blocking the judge from certifying results and a ruling that the election was unauthorized, arguing the state constitution's home rule provision only lets voters repeal 'local acts,' not ordinary resolutions like these. The superior court rejected the county's requests. The Supreme Court of Georgia agreed, holding that the constitutional language allows voters to seek repeal of resolutions and regulations adopted by a county government, not just formal local acts, so the judge acted within his authority.

The court held that Georgia's home rule provision for counties allows the electorate to petition for a referendum to repeal not only local acts but also ordinances, resolutions, and regulations adopted by a county's governing authority, so the probate judge properly called and certified the special election on the resolutions here.

The ruling confirms that Georgia voters can use the home rule petition process to force referendums repealing everyday county decisions, not just formal local acts. This gives citizens a stronger tool to challenge county government actions and could expose counties to more frequent referendum challenges over routine business decisions.

Affirmed

1. The court explained that a writ of mandamus, an order forcing an official to do a required duty, only works looking forward and cannot undo actions already taken; because the county wanted the judge's earlier decision undone, mandamus could not apply.
2. The court found the county was never a legal party to the probate court proceedings because Georgia's home rule provision gives no county the right to file a caveat or objection to a citizens' petition, so the county could not be blocked from seeking a declaratory judgment by collateral estoppel (a rule barring re-litigation of issues already decided between the same parties) or by failing to appeal.
3. Interpreting the constitutional home rule paragraph's plain language, the court concluded that while one part lets a county's own governing board amend or repeal 'local acts' by a two-meeting vote, a separate part lets the electorate petition for a referendum to repeal not just local acts but also 'ordinances, resolutions, or regulations' the county adopted under its general home rule power.
4. Applying that reading to the facts, the court determined the county's resolutions approving the rocket launch land option agreement were exactly the kind of resolutions covered by the referendum provision, so the voters' petition was valid and the probate judge had authority to call the election.
5. Because the probate judge acted within the scope of authority the constitution actually grants, the court concluded he did not exceed his jurisdiction, so a writ of prohibition, which stops a court from acting beyond its power, was unavailable and the county's request for that writ also failed.

• home rule
• spaceport referendum
• Camden County
• writ of mandamus
• writ of prohibition