Notice their choice of venue

The Democrats are challenging Voter ID in Fulton County Superior Court, not federal court.

Lawyers who have just filed a new challenge to Georgia’s voter ID law say a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding an Indiana statute actually bolsters their most recent effort.

“Frankly, the U.S. Supreme Court decision favors us,” said Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore partner Emmet J. Bondurant, the lead lawyer for the Democratic Party of Georgia. It filed suit in Fulton County Superior Court on Friday to have the 2006 Photo ID Act declared in violation of several provisions of the Georgia Constitution.

They’d file at the state level and not the federal level if they presume they have a weak case based on federal law, or can’t get around federal judges who are less prone to be activist judges.

It’s funny to hear Bondurant claim the SCOTUS voter ID case “favors” them and then run immediately to state court instead of federal court. That strongly suggests his statements are spin and not facts. In fact, the odds are that the case would get thrown out in federal court. Instead, they’ll go plead their case to what are presumably more favorably inclined state court judges.


  1. Bill Simon says:


    Lawyers? Spin? NO WAY!

    Lawyers CAN’T lie! It’s against their primary programming! It would be against Bondurant’s Hypocritical Oath!

  2. SouthFultonGuy says:

    You recon the Voter ID opponents can ask Hillary Clinton how to gracefully surrender?

  3. jamestanner says:

    Seems strange that a war “hero” would have video footage of himself in a bamboo caged p.o.w. camp deep in the vietnamese jungle. what a pile of crap! ranks right up there with NASA and there moon exploration. Its sad so many people believe the hype. Also sad that so many people are content with their mediocre lives while generations of politicians like the McCains have been living it up forever it seems on phoney sentiment for a fake, psycho, pitiful excuse for a human being. Stop the war or go fight it yourself old man!

  4. Rick Day says:


    Nope. Sounds like an issue of subject matter jurisdiction on issues regarding the state Constitution, to me.
    If you have not read the decision from SCOTUS, perhaps you should.

    Sounds like someone did.

  5. Gag Halfrunt says:

    Hey Rick! Are you trying to destroy this blog? “Read the decision.” Next you’ll suggest that someone read the companion SCOTUS case about the Democratic Party of Indiana. And then something really absurd like “go back to the reason the Supreme Court of Georgia reversed.”

    This is a blog about uninformed free-thinking political dithering.

    Get on board!

  6. HeartofGa says:

    The Georgia Constitution goes further than the U.S. Constitution to protect the rights of voters. The Indiana case is favorable because it established that the State Party, in this instance, the DPG, has standing. So, the DPG sued in state court. It’s not rocket science.

  7. Gag Halfrunt says:

    Perhaps we should also add that this is a blog of people who do not get literary allusions. Alas, I shouldn’t complain. Gag is just some guy.

  8. JasonW says:

    I don’t remember where I saw this, but I seem to recall that the case has been assigned to T. Jackson Bedford, a relatively conservative judge…

Comments are closed.