BLACK VOTERS MATTER FUND, INC. v. KEMP, GOVERNOR (Five Cases)
313 Ga. 375
Ga.2022Background
- In March 2021 Georgia enacted SB 9, splitting the former Augusta Judicial Circuit into a Columbia Judicial Circuit (Columbia County) and a new Augusta Judicial Circuit (Burke and Richmond Counties). Plaintiffs alleged the split was racially motivated in response to the election of the first Black district attorney for the former circuit.
- Three suits were filed in Richmond County Superior Court: Willie Saunders (resident) and Black Voters Matter Fund, Inc. (BVMF) (two separate actions, later consolidated). Claims included Voting Rights Act, federal and state constitutional, Title VI, and bill-of-attainder theories seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to block the split.
- The Georgia Supreme Court directed the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing addressing standing, sovereign immunity, proper parties, and interlocutory-injunction factors. The trial court instead focused on the merits, found SB 9 valid, concluded BVMF and Saunders had standing, dismissed all defendants except the State, and entered final judgment.
- On appeal, the State argued BVMF lacked standing and service was defective. The Supreme Court held BVMF lacked both organizational and associational standing (no concrete organizational injury; no evidence of members—articles showed no members), and vacated and remanded BVMF’s suits for dismissal.
- Saunders did not challenge the trial court’s dispositive ruling dismissing the defendants he sued; the Supreme Court therefore vacated the merits judgment as to Saunders and remanded with direction to dismiss his case. Cross-appeals by the State were dismissed as moot in light of these holdings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Does BVMF have organizational standing to challenge SB 9? | BVMF: its mission was frustrated and it diverted resources to litigate SB 9, constituting injury. | State: BVMF suffered no concrete, particularized injury traceable to SB 9; mission-frustration and litigation costs alone insufficient. | Held: No organizational standing—no concrete injury shown and diversion-to-litigation alone does not establish standing under Georgia law. |
| 2. Does BVMF have associational standing to sue on behalf of members? | BVMF: it represents affected Black voters in the circuit and can sue for their rights. | State: BVMF failed to identify any specific eligible-voter members; corporate articles show no members. | Held: No associational standing—BVMF offered no evidence of members or indicia of membership, so cannot represent injured voters. |
| 3. Is the federal "diversion-of-resources" theory applicable under Georgia law to confer standing? | BVMF: federal precedent (Havens, etc.) allows organizational standing where resources diverted to counteract harm. | State: Even if Georgia considered diversion theory, it should be cabined; diversion to litigation alone is insufficient. | Held: Georgia will not accept diversion-to-litigation alone; Havens read narrowly—diversion must reflect a concrete impairment of organizational activities, which BVMF did not prove. |
| 4. Should Saunders’ merits challenge proceed where the trial court dismissed all defendants he sued? | Saunders: challenged SB 9 on the merits. | State: Trial court dismissed the defendants Saunders named; without proper defendants, Saunders’ merits claim cannot proceed. | Held: Saunders failed to challenge the dispositive dismissal of his defendants on appeal; Court vacated merits judgment and remanded with direction to dismiss Saunders’ case. |
Key Cases Cited
- Parker v. Leeuwenburg, 300 Ga. 789 (2017) (standing is jurisdictional; court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction without standing)
- Blackmon v. Tenet Healthsystem Spalding, Inc., 284 Ga. 369 (2008) (standing is prerequisite to subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Aldridge v. Ga. Hospitality & Travel Assn., 251 Ga. 234 (1983) (three-part test for associational standing under Georgia law)
- Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (1982) (seminal federal case on organizational standing and diversion-of-resources theory)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (federal standing framework: injury, causation, redressability)
- New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC v. Dept. of Revenue, 308 Ga. 729 (2020) (party invoking jurisdiction bears burden to establish standing)