Wilson v. Sanders, 23763
Decision Date | 20 October 1966 |
Docket Number | No. 23763,23763 |
Citation | 151 S.E.2d 703,222 Ga. 681 |
Parties | Joe Mack WILSON et al. v. Carl E. SANDERS, Governor, et al. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The judicial power will not be used to enjoin enactment of legislation or adoption of a proposed constitutional amendment, and when designated state officials determine how a proposed constitutional amendment will be submitted to the voters, such submission, being a part of the legislative process, will not be enjoined.
2. The writ of mandamus will not be used to change an official decision or compel a different decision where officials are allowed discretion in making it.
Arthur L. Crowe, Jr., G. Robert Howard, Robert E. Flournoy, Jr., Marietta, for appellants.
Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Harold Hill, Asst. Atty. Gen., Alexander Cocalis, Atlanta, for appellees.
Par. I, Sec. I of Article XIII of the Georgia Constitution of 1945 (Code Ann. § 2-8101) Ga.L.1956, p. 637 and ratified on November 6, 1956, provides:
In 1965, the Georgia General Assembly passed a resolution proposing to amend Sec. I of Art. II of the Georgia Constitution as follows: 'No territory located within the boundaries of Cobb County shall be incorporated within the limits of any municipality, the major portion of which is located outside the territorial limits of Cobb County, without the approval of a majority of the qualified voters of Cobb County voting in an election held on that question.' Ga.L.1965, p. 741.
On September 8, 1966, Joe M. Wilson and others alleging themselves to be citizens and taxpayers of Cobb and DeKalb Counties brought their petition in Fulton Superior Court against Carl E. Sanders, Ben W. Fortson and Arthur K. Bolton in their respective capacities as Governor, Secretary of State and Attorney General alleging that they were acting under the provisions of Par. I, Sec. I, of Art. XIII of the Georgia Constitution.
It was alleged that on August 31, 1966, the defendants met and determined that the proposed amendment should be voted on (a) by the people residing in Cobb County and (b) in all municipalities in Georgia. Their petition was brought in four counts.
Counts 1 and 2 sought injunctive relief. Counts 3 and 4 sought the issuance of the writ of mandamus. In counts 1 and 3 petitioners contend that the proposed amendment should be submitted only to the voters of Cobb County. In counts 2 and 4, they contend that it should be submitted to all of the voters in the state. The prayers in count 1 were that the defendant Fortson be restrained from holding the election on any other basis than a general basis so that only the voters of Cobb County would be permitted to vote on the proposed amendment. In count 2, it was prayed that Fortson be restrained from submitting the proposed amendment on any other basis than as a general amendment. As to the prayers for a writ of mandamus, count 3 prayed for defendants to show cause 'why a mandamus should not be issued against them requiring them to declare said constitutional amendment directly affecting only Cobb County and requiring defendant Fortson to submit this amendment only to the registered voters of Cobb County qualified to vote for members of the General Assembly.' Count 4 prayed that defendants show cause 'why a mandamus should not be issued against them requiring them to declare that said constitutional amendment directly affects the entire State of Georgia and requiring defendant Fortson to submit this amendment to the registered voters of the entire State of Georgia, qualified to vote for members of the General Assembly.'
In response to a rule nisi, and on a hearing thereof, the motion of the defendants to dismiss the petition was sustained. The case is here on appeal for us to review this order.
We agree with counsel for appellees that the two decisive issues raised by their motion to dismiss are
1. Injunctive relief. In the case of Gaskins v. Dorsey, 150 Ga. 638, 104 S.E. 433, the plaintiffs sought to enjoin the Governor of Georgia and other officials from submitting a proposed constitutional amendment to a vote of the people. In a full bench decision it was there held: Id. at 639, 104 S.E. at 433.
The principle that the judicial department will not interfere with the legislative department in the enactment of legislation or adoption of proposed amendments to the constitution is applicable here. The reason is that the action of the defendants in determining 'whether a proposed amendment is general, and if not general, shall determine what political subdivision or subdivisions are directly affected by such proposed amendment' is a part of the legislative process in submitting a proposed amendment to the Constitution to the voters of the state.
Counts 1 and 2 of the petition stated no cause for injunctive relief.
2. The writ of mandamus. Par. I, Sec. I of Art. XIII of the Georgia Constitution vests in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
O'KELLEY v. Cox
...will be submitted to the voters, such submission, being a part of the legislative process, will not be enjoined. Wilson v. Sanders, 222 Ga. 681(1), 151 S.E.2d 703 (1966). Judgment All the Justices concur, except HUNSTEIN, J., who concurs specially, and SEARS, P.J., and BENHAM, J., who disse......
-
Hilton Const. Co., Inc. v. Rockdale County Bd. of Ed.
...perpetrated, and * * * this is so, even though the action taken was clearly illegal.' 38 C.J. 592, (§ 70)." Wilson v. Sanders, 222 Ga. 681, 685, 151 S.E.2d 703, 705 (1966). See also Coastal Service, Inc. v. Jackson, 223 Ga. 238, 239, 154 S.E.2d 365 (1967). The case of City of Atlanta v. Wri......
-
Kennedy Funding, Inc. v. City of Jr., CV 212-183
...the correction of wrongs already perpetrated." Coastal Serv., Inc. v. Jackson, 154 S.E.2d 365, 366 (Ga. 1967) (quoting Wilson v. Sanders, 151 S.E.2d 703, 705 (Ga. 1966)). Though mandamus may issue to compel the performance of specific duties,it will not lie to compel a general course of con......
-
Leyland-Jones v. City of Jr.
...the correction of wrongs already perpetrated." Coastal Serv., Inc. v. Jackson, 154 S.E.2d 365, 366 (Ga. 1967) (quoting Wilson v. Sanders, 151 S.E.2d 703, 705 (Ga. 1966)). Though mandamus may issue to compel the performance of specific duties,it will not lie to compel a general course of con......