ATLANTA — On Thursday, Georgia’s highest court confirmed the decision of a lower court to dismiss a lawsuit initiated by a former state legislator, a current state representative, and several protestors who were arrested at the state Capitol.
U.S. Representative Nikema Williams, who was serving as a state senator at the time, was one of 15 individuals detained in November 2018 while advocating for the counting of uncounted ballots. At that moment, unofficial election results indicated that Republican Brian Kemp was narrowly ahead of Democrat Stacey Abrams in the gubernatorial race. Abrams contended that a significant number of absentee, mail-in, and provisional ballots remained uncounted, which could necessitate a runoff election. Eventually, Kemp was declared the winner and took the office of governor.
In a separate incident, state Representative Park Cannon was arrested on March 25, 2021, after she knocked on the door of the governor’s office while live streaming her remarks supporting a major election law the governor had just signed.
Williams, Cannon, along with several other individuals, filed a lawsuit against officers from the Georgia Department of Public Safety who were involved in their arrests or were linked to enforcement decisions. They claimed that the legislation utilized to detain them violated protections for free speech under the Georgia Constitution and argued that it was overly vague. Additionally, they contended that the law was improperly applied in their cases since they had no intention to disrupt a session of the General Assembly and did not do so.
A superior court judge in Fulton County dismissed these claims, and the Georgia Supreme Court upheld this dismissal with a unanimous vote.
Justice John Ellington stated in the court’s opinion that the claims made in the lawsuit did not warrant a declaration that the law was “facially unconstitutionally overbroad or vague under Georgia law.” He further elaborated that “when interpreted according to their plain and straightforward wording, these provisions do not restrict a significant amount of protected speech relative to their legitimate purpose of preventing or disrupting legislative functions.”
Additionally, Presiding Justice Nels Peterson issued a concurring opinion that highlighted potential constitutional issues with the law, suggesting that “the State should not misinterpret this limited win as a completely valid statute.”
He remarked, “The law has significant flaws, and those tasked with its enforcement must be cautious in avoiding such issues. Moreover, the General Assembly should earnestly consider revising it.”