Filed Date: Oct. 14, 2016
Closed Date: Nov. 11, 2016
Clearinghouse coding complete
This is a case about the constitutionality of Georgia House Bill 514 ("HB 514") and the November 2016 referendum ("the Referendum") on the incorporation of the proposed City of South Fulton. On October 14, 2016, a registered voter of unincorporated Fulton County filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Norther District of Georgia, Atlanta Division. The plaintiff sued the members and officers of the Fulton County Board of Registration and Elections under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 2201. Represented by private counsel, the plaintiff sought declaratory relief to declare HB 514 unconstitutional and to enjoin the Referendum. They claimed that (1) HB 514 expressly allowed certain persons who would not/may not ultimately reside in the proposed City of South Fulton to vote in the Referendum, thereby diluting and debasing plaintiff's and similar situated voters' votes and (2) plaintiff and similarly situated voters will be forced to vote on the incorporation of a city without knowing the territorial makeup and tax base of the potential city or whether the new city will include certain portions of Fulton County that are the subject of a pending dispute.
On October 14, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion for temporary restraining order and incorporated memorandum of law. In the motion, plaintiff requested the court to issue a temporary restraining order enjoining the defendants from holding the Referendum. Plaintiff argues that if the Referendum went forward, the plaintiff and similarly situated voters would be deprived of their constitutional right to equal protection and due process. HB514 authorized the Referendum, whereby the residents of unincorporated Fulton County would vote on the creation of a new “City of South Fulton”. Amongst those who were allowed to vote on the Referendum where (1) residents of the Fulton County Industrial District (the "FID") and (2) residents in the Cascade-area neighborhood of unincorporated Fulton County. Plaintiff argued that the inclusion of these two groups of voters would dilute Plaintiff and other similarly situated voters. The Georgia Constitution prohibits the FID from becoming a part of the new City of South Fulton and at the time the Referendum would have taken place, it was unclear if the Cascade-area neighborhood would be annexed into the City of Atlanta. Therefore, the plaintiff argues that because the residents of individuals who cannot or may not possible become residents of the proposed new city would be allowed to vote on the Referendum, plaintiff's and similarly situated voters' vote would be diluted and accordingly amount to a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
Plaintiff further argued that text of HB 514 violated voters' rights to substantive due process of law because the full text of the law did not inform voters on the topics on which they are voting. The plaintiff alleged that the language concerning the proposed new city's power to tax was ambiguous because voters did not know that the new city would not include the FID in the tax base and it was uncertain if it would include the residents of the Cascade-area neighbor.
On November 2, 2016, the Court verbally denied the plaintiff's motion and issued an opinion on November 4, 2016. In its opinion, the Court found that the plaintiff did not have a substantial likelihood of success of the merits because (1) with respect to the FID, the plaintiff cited no authority for the proposition that the Equal Protection Clause is violated where those outside the proposed city limits are allowed to vote on a referendum incorporating a new city and (2) with respect for the Cascade-area neighborhood, the resident of this neighborhood are currently residents of the unincorporated Fulton County and allowed to vote under the law. Although there may be a time when they are no longer residents of the unincorporated Fulton County, this fact has not yet occurred and therefore, there is no equal protection issue at this time.
With respect to the substantive due process claim, the Court found that the language of the ballot is not so misleading that voters cannot recognize the subject of the Referendum at issue. The Court also found that the plaintiff would not be irreparably harmed if the vote on the Referendum is not halted. Irreparable harm is not presumed in equal protection and due process violations. Because there were other corrective relief available to the Plaintiff at a later date, the facts weigh against a claim of irreparable harm.
On November 11, 2016, the parties entered a stipulation of dismissal without prejudice that the Court granted on November 14, 2016.
Summary Authors
Francesca Garcia (5/13/2024)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4505532/parties/davis-v-cooney/
Ballew, Sara T. (Georgia)
Bonner, Charles A. (Georgia)
Brinckerhoff, Matthew D. (Georgia)
Burwell, Kaye Woodard (Georgia)
Belinfante, Joshua Barrett (Georgia)
Brinckerhoff, Matthew D. (Georgia)
Coleman, Keisha Oldacre (Georgia)
Davis, Christopher Quincy (Georgia)
Edwards, Catharine Elizabeth (Georgia)
Glatter, Denise Rubin (Georgia)
Gunter, Matthew Ryan (Georgia)
Highsmith, Robert S. (Georgia)
Mullaney, Marybeth E (Georgia)
Ruttenberg, Edward A (Georgia)
Saylor, Elizabeth S. (Georgia)
Spagnoli, Charles C. (Georgia)
Traber, James Richard (Georgia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4505532/davis-v-cooney/
Last updated Aug. 8, 2025, 7:25 a.m.
State / Territory: Georgia
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Law Firm Antiracism Alliance (LFAA) project
Key Dates
Filing Date: Oct. 14, 2016
Closing Date: Nov. 11, 2016
Case Ongoing: No reason to think so
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Individual voter
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
members/officers of the Fulton County Board of Registration and Elections (Fulton), County
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Substantive Due Process
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Issues
Voting: