To read all of JAMES Magazine Online’s daily news, SUBSCRIBE HERE. *Subscription includes a complimentary subscription to JAMES Magazine.   

With the recent order handed down by Cobb County Superior Court in Adams v. Cobb County Board of Elections and Registration (“BOER”), David and Catherine Floam and their counsel Ray Smith of Smith & Liss, LLC are celebrating a delayed victory. And it has statewide implications.

The Floams were plaintiffs in an earlier, highly publicized case– Floam v. Cobb County–wherein they sought a writ of mandamus and a declaratory judgment that the action taken by the Cobb County Commission in amending the state legislature’s redistricting map under purported home rule authority was invalid and unconstitutional. The Floams prevailed on their declaratory relief claim at the trial court level, obtaining summary judgment that the county had no home rule authority to amend the state enacted redistricting map and declaring it unconstitutional and void. However, the county appealed the ruling to the Georgia Supreme Court. Ultimately, the Supreme Court overturned the trial court’s decision solely on the grounds that, while the Floams indeed had constitutional standing as community stakeholders, they did not have adequate insecurity about future conduct to support the declaratory relief claim.    

In the meantime, a new plaintiff, Republican Alicia Adams, had filed an action against the Democrat-controlled County Commission challenging the decision that she did not meet residency requirements to run for commissioner of District 2.  Adams resides in District 2 under the state map but not the county map, and the Commission enforced the county’s home rule map over the state map, disqualifying Adams from candidacy. She sought both a review of the Commission’s administrative enforcement of the county map and a writ of mandamus and injunctive relief.   

In framing these two companion cases, the parties as well as the court incorporated the facts from the summary judgment order in the Floam case.  It also scheduled a hearing specifically “to consider supplemental oral arguments in light of the Supreme Court’s opinion [in the Floam case].”  (Order on Petition for Appeal and Judicial Review at page 6.)  Moreover, in an unusual action, the Adams Court attached a full copy of the summary judgment order entered in the Floam case to its own Order on Petition for Appeal and Judicial Review and to its Order Granting Writ of Mandamus. 

On July 25, 2024, the trial court in the Adams case ruled that “the Resolution adopting the Home Rule Map was outside of the authority granted to the Cobb County Commission under the home Rule Paragraph of the Georgia Constitution at Art. IX, § II, Para. I.”  Order on Petition for Appeal and Judicial Review at p.9.  In rendering this decision, the Adams Court found that, while the summary judgment order entered in the Floams’ case was overruled on standing grounds, it “otherwise appears to correctly analyze the constitutionality of the Home Rule Map.”  

Thus, the Adams Court “adopt[ed] and incorporate[d] the constitutional analysis set forth in the Floam Summary Judgment Order.”  That was quite a victory for Floam attorney Smith. 

The Adams Court further held that, “having ruled the Home Rule Map unconstitutional[,]” Adams had the clear legal right to seek qualification as a candidate for District 2. (Order Granting Writ of Mandamus at page 8.)  It granted her a writ of mandamus requiring the Cobb Commission to stop using the county map for election/qualification purposes and to call a special primary election for Districts 2 and 4, which had been conducted under the invalid county map in May.   

Despite the reversal of their particular case, the Floams are pleased to see their cause– to hold the County Commission accountable for abusing and misusing its power– ultimately successful. The reliance by the Adams Court on the FloamCourt’s facts, legal analysis and conclusion reaffirms the correctness of the position maintained by the Floams throughout trial and appeal. The county acted without authority and contrary to the constitutional limitations of its power.  

As stated by the Floams’ attorney Smith, the Adams ruling constitutes a delayed victory in their own case and they’re glad they were able to play a part in bringing this important issue to light. 

The County Commission’s obstinate refusal to acknowledge its own limitations and mistakes has led to significant financial cost to be underwritten by Cobb taxpayers. It will also require the unraveling of an election that has already taken place and delay the next scheduled election.   

This is precisely the confusion and waste of resources that the Floams said they feared and hoped to avoid. However, the Floams say that the result of requiring elected officials to remain within the bounds of their legal authority and ensuring a lawful election process is of paramount importance— and one they are extremely happy to see served.  

Phil Kent is the CEO & Publisher of James Magazine Online.