CATOOSA COUNTY REPUBLICAN PARTY v. HENRY (Two Cases)

The Catoosa County Republican Party wanted to make sure candidates running as Republicans were "Republican" enough. It required would-be county candidates to interview with its executive committee and obtain a "qualifying affidavit" before they could qualify for the 2024 primary. When it refused to qualify four candidates, they sued, and a Catoosa County judge ordered the party to qualify them. The party kept refusing. The trial court held the party and several members in contempt, awarded attorney fees, and permanently barred the rule. The Supreme Court of Georgia upheld the ban, finding the county party is not a "party" under state election law and has no First Amendment right to control who runs as a Georgia Republican. It reversed contempt for two members for lack of evidence, and dismissed a separate appeal by nonparty members because they skipped a required step.

Under Georgia's election law, only the state-level party, not a county party organization, can set procedural rules for candidate qualifying, so the county party's affidavit rule was invalid and the First Amendment did not protect it. Contempt findings stand where evidence showed willful disobedience of the court's order, and nonparty members had to apply for discretionary review of fee awards.

County party organizations in Georgia cannot add their own loyalty tests to the candidate qualifying process. Candidates who meet state requirements and the state party's rules can qualify, and local party officials who ignore court orders can face contempt and attorney fees personally.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part in S26A0636; appeal dismissed in S26A0637

1. The party relied on a statute (OCGA § 21-2-153(b)) letting a "party" set procedural qualifying rules. The court read the word using its Election Code definition, which covers only organizations that ran statewide candidates for governor or president, so a county party does not qualify.
2. Because the county party is not a "party" under that definition, state law gave it no power to create its own qualifying rules. County organizations act as agents helping the state party qualify candidates as Georgia Republicans, not as county Republicans.
3. On the First Amendment, the court said the injunction only stops the county party from controlling who appears on the ballot as a Georgia Republican. States may regulate how parties take part in public elections, so no association right was violated.
4. The court rejected claims that the dispute was moot or that other remedies sufficed. The party said it would keep using the rule in 2026, and three candidates are officeholders who may run again, so a permanent injunction had a practical effect.
5. For contempt, the court asked whether a rational fact-finder could find willful refusal to obey the order beyond a reasonable doubt. Evidence supported most members, but the reliance on unsworn filings for two members was insufficient, so those findings were reversed.
6. The nonparty members could appeal only the attorney-fee award against them. Georgia law requires a discretionary application for such awards (OCGA § 5-6-35(a)(10)), and they filed only a notice of appeal, so the court lacked jurisdiction.

• ballot access
• county Republican Party
• candidate qualifying
• contempt of court
• Catoosa County