Atlanta, GA — The federal 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed the trajectory of the Catoosa GOP’s case dealing with their right to refuse to allow four RINO past-serving commissioners to run again as Republicans in the primary. We felt confident this would eventually happen as the case made its way up the ladder in the federal appeals process because SCOTUS precedent on this subject is so clearly favorable to the Catoosa GOP’s position.
The court also rebuked the lower court Judge Bill Ray in Rome for not recognizing the Catoosa GOP’s right to “freedom of speech” when the Board of Elections refused to publish the questions the Catoosa Republican Primary had submitted for the primary ballot last year.
The Catoosa County Republican Party issued this statement:
Opponents to accountability on the primary ballot have argued that Georgia’s state law does not allow political parties to deny primary ballot access, but the 11th Circuit said any such restrictions in the state law would be in violation of the 1st Amendment’s protection of “freedom of association.” In addressing the Catoosa GOP’s standing to sue, one key part of the text of the federal court’s opinion said:
“We respectfully disagree with the district court’s reasons for distinguishing our Duke cases. The court noted that this case in-volved a county-level political party, rather than a state or national party. But we see no reason why a county-level party, and its constituent members, would not also enjoy the right to freedom of association and the right to identify those who constitute the local party based on political beliefs. See id. The court also suggested that the Duke cases are different because they involved a presidential primary where the party ‘enjoyed substantial discretionary power’ to select candidates, but Georgia state law ‘provides no discretion for a county party to deny qualification to candidates based on substantive concerns.’ See O.C.G.A. § 21-2-153. That state law may prevent the Catoosa GOP from excluding primary candidates for ideological reasons, though, simply shows that its right to freedom of association has been burdened. It does not negate the right. After all, a political party’s constitutional right to exclude, ‘central to its freedom of association,’ is not derived from state law. Wash. State Grange v. Wash. State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442, 445 (2008).” (Underlining added.)
In addition to addressing the standing to sue for “right of association,” the 11th Circuit also addressed the subject of the ballot questions that were not allowed to be published as a violation of the county GOP’s “freedom of speech.” This aspect of the controversy in the case often gets eclipsed by the other aspect dealing with the right of association. The court said that even though the ballots are published by the government, that medium does not take away from a private entity’s freedom of speech. Catoosa GOP Chairman Joanna Hildreth (who was re-elected this year) & her team submitted three primary ballot questions last year to be included on the county GOP primary ballot, as political parties often do, but the Board of Elections refused to publish them.
The two primary ballot questions that the court included in their opinion were these:
”1. Do you think anti-Trump Democrats should be able to get a court order to force the elections board to qualify them as Republican candidates for office?
“2. Did you know that [the four excluded candidates (listed by name)] were not approved to run as Repub-licans by the Republican Party?”
The 11th Circuit Court remanded the case (sent the case back to the lower federal judge, presumably Judge Billy Ray in Rome) to take another stab at addressing the Catoosa GOP’s suit — this time on its merits.
You can read the entire opinion of the 11th Circuit Court by clicking here.