All Blog Posts

Ringgold, GA — Yesterday, the Judge David K. Smith of the Superior Court of Catoosa County contradicted the Federal 11th Circuit Court decision issued a few months ago, which upheld the Catoosa GOP’s “freedom of association” lawsuit. In 2024, the Catoosa Republican Party attempted to deny four commissioners a place on their primary ballot, due to those commissioners’ reputation for opposing and not implementing core Republican principles — such as supporting low taxes, allowing backyard chickens on private property, protecting medical freedom, and not endorsing Democrats. They set a very low bar of mainstream Republican positions, and politely denied candidates who didn’t meet that minimum standard.

“While it is disappointing that the state court decision completely ignores the recent related federal 11th Circuit Court of Appeals decision that clearly recognizes the constitutional issues at play, we look forward to continued appellate review that accurately recognizes the rights of volunteer-run political parties to enforce their platform on behalf of busy citizens and not be forced by government to cover for insider wealthy interests deceiving voters,” said GRA Chairman Alex Johnson, one of the attorneys representing Catoosa GOP.

Judge Smith is a retired judge from Bartow County who was brought into this case because all four judges over Lookout Mountain Judicial Circuit recused themselves.

Judge Smith’s order went so far as to state: “… there was no legal basis for the behavior of the Catoosa Republican Party” and issued a judgment against several members of the Catoosa GOP, requiring them to pay the legal fees of the four County Commissioners.

But this decision flatly contradicts the 11th Circuit Federal Court which stated in June:

“The Supreme Court has explained that the First Amendment’s ‘freedom to join together in furtherance of common political beliefs necessarily presupposes the freedom to identify the people who constitute the association,’ Tashjian v. Republican Party of Conn., 479 U.S. 208, 214 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted), and ‘to limit the association to those people only,’ Democratic Party of U.S. v. Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette, 450 U.S. 107, 122 (1981). In other words, ‘a corollary of the right to associate is the right not to associate.’ Cal. Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567, 574 (2000).

Regarding the right not to associate, the U.S. Supreme Court “has recognized that the inclusion of persons unaffiliated with a political party may seriously distort its collective decisions—thus impairing the party’s essential functions—and that political parties may accordingly protect themselves from intrusion by those with adverse political principles.” La Follette, 450 U.S. at 122 (quotation marks omitted). And generally “a [s]tate, or a court, may not constitutionally substitute its own judgment for that of the [p]arty.” Id. at 123–24.

“We have recognized that a political party’s right to advance the shared political beliefs of its members may include the right not to associate with candidates on a primary ballot.” (Underlining added.)

With such overt clarity from the U.S. Supreme Court on this issue, it is shocking that a state level court would issue an order so contradictory to this legal precedent. You know, Stare Decisis and all that.

However, it is not entirely unexpected that the Federal Court might be more neutral and objective about Catoosa GOP’s case, since the Federal judiciary is not beholden to Governor Brian Kemp nor are they as closely connected to some of the state legislators whose political careers might be in jeopardy if the Georgia Republican Party began exercising its freedom of association rights more regularly. Make no mistake – Georgia politicians are watching this case very closely.

The 11th Circuit opinion said:
“…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.)

The far-left Atlanta Journal Constitution newspaper and some Establishment-leaning GOP activists were quick to report on this unfavorable ruling, even though they seemed to ignore the 11th Circuit (Federal) Court’s opinion when it was handed down on June 12th, probably because they didn’t like the outcome of that decision.  

Fake Republican politicians don’t like being held accountable to a written platform. Politicians and Debbie Dooley are terrified that grassroots Republicans like you just might click the donate button and enable Catoosa GOP to continue this legal fight where SCOTUS precedent is so clearly on their side.

This aggressive decision from the Catoosa Superior Court is ripe for appeal, and Catoosa GOP members stand resolute, despite the fear-mongering efforts of their critics. They are bolstered by the knowledge that real, principled, grassroots Republicans across Georgia are behind them.

Will you pitch in $10 or $20 to help the Catoosa GOP team as they trailblaze for all Georgia Republicans? You can donate here to support the Catoosa GOP’s ongoing legal battle for freedom of association:

https://www.givesendgo.com/supportjoannahildreth

The Georgia Republican Party (on the state level) has done two things in the past year to maintain the Republican Party’s reputation and brand.

One, was when the State Executive Committee of the GAGOP voted to adopt a resolution (“resolution” = “written motion”) to ban Geoff Duncan from running as a Republican.

The second, was when the State Republican Party Convention voted to adopt a resolution (again, “resolution” = “written motion”) to ban Brad Raffensperger from running as a Republican.

For those of you who don’t know Roberts Rules of Order, a motion is a proposal within an organization (be it a board of directors, a convention, the state committee, or any other governing body or committee) to take some sort of action and it requires the organization to enact any commands within it.

Geoff Duncan, is running for Governor as a Democrat. He decided NOT to try to lie to voters and claim he’s a Republican, possibly due to the party making clear that he was not welcome.

Brad Raffensperger, on the other hand, has decided to run for Governor and lie to voters claiming he’s a Republican. While qualifying has not happened yet, some within the State GOP are making statements that mislead people about the role and power of the GAGOP. Simply because the GAGOP has failed for years, due to wanting to work for politicians that are leading us closer to Democrat victories, to exercise its ability to ensure Republican politicians are accountable to you, that does not mean that the Republican Party does not have the power to do so.

There is extensive Supreme Court and federal caselaw that holds that the Republican Party cannot be controlled by state laws, including being forced to qualify people it does not want to associate with for office. The First Amendment guarantees a right to freedom of association. The law is clearly on our side.

There are lawyers that have been helping the Catoosa GOP, pro bono, in getting favorable court rulings that affirm that right. The idea that the party needs millions of dollars to exercise a basic constitutional right is not only false, but also belies the inability of those pushing it to actually reach out to attorneys that are willing to help save the country without charging the party millions of dollars.

If we want to win elections not just next year, but for years into the future, the Republican Party must have a good, consistent brand that enacts great policies into law. Not one that’s sold to the highest bidder and seen as bad, but only better than the alternative.

What type of GOP do you want to see? Cheerleaders for the highest bidders? Or a principled organization that encourages accountability?

Rome, GA – On Monday, federal Judge Billy Ray heard arguments related to Catoosa GOP’s “freedom of association” lawsuit, and he did not grant Catoosa County Attorney Chris Harris’s motion to dismiss the case at this time.

This hearing follows a successful appeal to the 11th Circuit Court which recently affirmed the Catoosa GOP’s position, and remanded the case back to federal Judge Billy Ray.

“We are encouraged that multiple claims are definitely moving forward and are hopeful for a positive judicial decision on all the others,” said Alex Johnson, GRA Chairman and volunteer attorney for Catoosa GOP. “We are grateful we do not live in a country where the government can force political parties to associate with people who don’t share their values and principles.”

This lawsuit originated in March 2024 after the Catoosa County Republican Party sought to exercise its constitutional right to freedom of association by denying four commission candidates a place on the Republican primary ballot. The local GOP made this decision because those candidates had previously supported Democrat public policy positions contrary to the Republican Party platform.

Catoosa County, located on Georgia’s border with Tennessee, voted 77% for Donald Trump in 2024. In State Senate District 53, Senator Colton Moore received 78% of the vote. These figures underscore the near impossibility of winning office in Catoosa County as a Democrat or third-party candidate. Consequently, control over access to the Republican primary ballot has become a fiercely contested issue.

Like many other deeply conservative counties in Georgia, the real political contest in Catoosa often occurs in the Republican primary rather than the general election.

Despite the local party’s objections, the Catoosa County Board of Elections voted 4–1 to place the four candidates’ names on the Republican primary ballot—over the GOP’s opposition and, the party contends, in violation of state law. The Catoosa GOP has since filed suit against the Board, alleging that its actions infringed upon the party’s constitutional right to freedom of association.

“Any claim related to the freedom of association should be dismissed,” argued Harris.

Attorney Johnson countered that allowing a government entity to dictate who a political party must accept on its primary ballot resembles the practices of countries such as North Korea or Cuba. Such a practice is wholly un-American and unconstitutional.

Judge Billy Ray gave both sides close scrutiny, posing pointed questions to each attorney and testing their arguments as though playing devil’s advocate.

The Ticking Clock and Looming Elections
It was clear that both sides are eager to see this lawsuit resolved swiftly. Attorney Harris noted that the Board of Elections is seeking guidance for future elections, particularly with another primary approaching soon.

The stakes are high and tensions continue to rise, especially as another Catoosa County commissioner, Chuck Harris, faces re-election in 2026. Earlier this year, delegates at the Catoosa GOP County Convention voted to expel and ban him “from qualifying as a candidate of the Catoosa County Republican Party in any capacity.”

This motion (in the form of a resolution) which passed overwhelmingly, also demanded that:

“5. That CHUCK HARRIS is hereby demanded to cease and desist from calling himself a “Republican” or using his false claim of being a “Republican” for personal profit. 6. That CHUCK HARRIS is hereby banned from all property owned, leased, rented or in the control of the Catoosa County Republican Party and all events held by or under the authority of the Catoosa County Republican Party.”

The delegates passed similarly severe motions regarding the other sitting commissioners as well.

The Court appeared to recognize the gravity of this case and the precedent it could set for county parties across Georgia.

“If you’re right, you’re right for everybody,” Judge Billy Ray told attorney Alex Johnson during the hearing. This may have been allusion to the pending order from the GA GOP State Convention delegation passed this past summer in a resolution to block Brad Raffensperger from running in the Republican Primary next year.
.
One of the questions the court raised was what specific harm could be demonstrated to come from voters seeing candidates’ names on the Republican primary ballot. While that question was not fully addressed in this hearing, the Catoosa GOP maintains that political parties are harmed when donors and grassroots activists withdraw their support—refusing to give, volunteer, or campaign—because of the party’s association with candidates who do not share its principles.

Many Republicans across Georgia have expressed frustration when they see candidates on the ballot (at the Federal, State, or local level) whose values appear inconsistent with the party’s platform. The damage grows when disillusioned voters, discouraged by the actions or reputations of certain politicians, choose to stay home on Election Day altogether – thereby never laying eyes on the candidates name at the polls.

Ballot Questions & Catoosa GOP’s Freedom of Speech

Another element of the lawsuit relates to the party’s free speech rights that were violated when the non-binding ballot questions that Catoosa GOP attempted to place on their primary ballot were denied.

“Is it your position that no matter what the content was, the ballot questions should be allowed?” Judge Ray asked Alex Johnson.

He questioned whether the state should allow questions that perhaps incited violence, or might be considered electioneering with the intent to sway voters. Johnson replied that, if the law allowed that speech, there could still be consequences, since the first amendment prohibits the government from restricting speech, but it doesn’t protect individuals from the consequences of their speech.

Judge Ray acknowledged that the statute says “shall” which doesn’t give the state much latitude. Johnson made the case that if ballot questions on a party’s primary may be denied for simply attempting to sway a voter on an issue, or lead a voter to a specific conclusion, one could argue the general ballot referendum questions have been electioneering for many years.

Catoosa GOP Needs Your Help

Chairwoman Joanna Hildreth and her volunteer team have remained steadfast throughout this battle, even expressing a willingness to face jail time in defense of their community’s right to preserve Republican integrity and resist Democrat-aligned public policy.

There will be another hearing for Catoosa GOP this Friday, October 10th at 9:00am at the Catoosa County Courthouse 7694 Nashville St. Ringgold, GA 30736. Republicans are encouraged to attend and show their support for the resolute leaders of Catoosa GOP.

Judge Ray intends to hand down another decision sometime before 2026 qualifying begins, and GRA members are hopeful that the decision will affirm the Catoosa GOP’s constitutional rights.

If you cannot attend the hearing, please consider donating to the ongoing legal expenses, filing fees, and court costs that Catoosa GOP has sustained. Stay tuned for a link to donate to help.