Quo Warranto Action Against Lieutenant Governor Based on Insurrection Clause Denied

Petitioners filed a petition for writ of quo warranto against Georgia’s Lieutenant Governor. They allege Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (i.e., the Insurrection Clause) bars his service because he executed certain documents in connection with the 2020 presidential election while serving as a state senator. Petitioners allege Mr. Jones “sought to overturn the election results by ‘falsely and fraudulently creating and executing false writings which were submitted to authorities in the United States Congress [who were] responsible for counting the electoral votes from the State of Georgia.'”

First, the Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court followed the proper procedures for considering and denying the application.

Second, the Court concluded that quo warranto was not the proper method to consider the petitioner’s complaints.

Hence, like Edwards, the petitioners’ claim does not challenge Jones’s actual right to hold public office (i.e., because he did not meet the residency requirement or because his election was held contrary to Georgia law), but they instead allege that Jones committed misconduct while in office by wrongfully executing certain documents[,] which warrants his removal. Even assuming the allegations to be true, such a claim of misconduct in office is not redressable under Georgia’s quo warranto statute.

To address the Insurrection Clause, the Court cited Trump v. Anderson, 601 U.S. 100, 144 S. Ct. 662 (2024), in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Insurrection Clause was not self-executing, and that state legislatures must enact laws to give effect to the clause in each state.

There is no language in the Trump decision to suggest that a state’s exercise of its authority under this Constitutional provision can be utilized outside of a state statute authorizing such action, and as stated above, Georgia law is clear that a quo warranto proceeding seeking to disqualify a state officeholder from public office based on allegations of misconduct is not the proper vehicle for such action.

About Cook & Associates

Cook & Associates serves rural utilities, state and local governments, and construction clients with specialized legal services while retaining the personal touch and more economical rates of a small firm.