DESCRIPTION

The Supreme Court will decide whether to grant certiorari in Rose v. Raffensperger. The case challenges the Georgia Public Service Commission’s at-large elections as unconstitutionally diluting the vote of Black Georgians under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.  

ELC is representing Amicus Curiae Sierra Club in support of Petitioners, Rose et al. In their brief, submitted to the Supreme Court on April 26, 2024, amicus explains how the  

PSC—an elected, five-member administrative agency that regulates utilities in Georgia—is not merely a quasi-judicial body that falls neatly within Eleventh Circuit precedent. Instead, the brief illuminates the nature of the PSC as a policymaking agency that exercises extensive quasi-legislative power, functions as a collegial body, and is designed to be directly accountable to the people through democratically elected, partisan contests.  

Additionally, the brief demonstrates that the PSC would function efficiently, perhaps even more effectively, if elected by single-member districts. This brief argues that the Eleventh Circuit’s reliance on Commissioner Pridemore’s lay testimony was inappropriate because her concerns about favoritism and maintaining safety are wholly unsubstantiated and her concerns about in-fighting are misguided. Current residency requirements indicate an existing commitment to localism, and districted elections will enable advocacy on behalf of, and responsiveness to, all of Georgia’s communities.  

Finally, Amicus contextualizes the detrimental consequences of inadequate representation for Georgia’s minority residents at the PSC. Using a study published by Amicus, the brief details how Georgia’s Black residents spend a much higher share of their household income on utilities than white residents. The PSC ignores issues that are important to Georgia’s Black residents, and unable to elect their representatives of choice, Black Georgians have no recourse. 

BACKGROUND

In 2020, Plaintiffs, a group of African American voters in Georgia, challenged the at-large method of electing PSC commissioners under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, arguing that it impermissibly diluted the vote of Black Georgians, giving them less opportunity to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice. After a five-day bench trial, the district court held that the state’s at-large method of electing PSC commissioners violated Section 2 and enjoined the Secretary from administering any future PSC elections using the state-wide, at-large method.  

On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit reversed, holding that the Plaintiffs had not satisfied the first Gingles precondition because their single-member district demonstration plan “impermissibly altered Georgia’s chosen form of government.” Not only is the Eleventh Circuit’s precedent idiosyncratic, immunizing judicial bodies in contravention of the Supreme Court’s recent affirmance of the Gingles preconditions in Allen v. Milligan, but it was also incorrect to extend this doctrine to the PSC, a multi-member policymaking body. 

Plaintiffs now petition the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. They argue that as a legal matter, the Eleventh Circuit’s decision contravenes Section 2. ELC, representing the Sierra Club, filed an amicus brief in support of the Petitioners, seeking to illuminate the nature of the PSC to dispel the notion that the PSC is merely a quasi-judicial body that falls neatly within the Eleventh Circuit’s jurisprudence and to highlight the policy consequences of diluting the votes of Black residents. Amicus urges the Court to summarily reverse the Eleventh Circuit’s decision or set the matter for full merits consideration.