*1 S90A0383. GOVERNMENT, CITIZENS FOR ETHICAL ASSOCIATES,

INC. v. GWINNETT PLACE L.P. SE2d Clarke, Chief Justice. controversy underlying this action arose when Citizens for (“Citizens”) sought signatures Government,

Ethical the recall of an Inc. general official in

elected Gwinnett Place Mall. The manager policy prohibited po- of mall informed Citizens that mall litical tion in and solicitation the mall. Citizens then filed this ac- seeking enjoin policy. enforcement of the The trial court de- injunction, holding nied the that neither the United States nor the Georgia requires Constitution the owners of a owned and operated shopping petitions center to the distribution of unre- operations lated to the of the center. We affirm. contends that should be dismissed as Appellee points campaign moot. pleted. out that the recall has been com- reap any

Citizens cannot benefit from this court’s on Citizens, the merits hand, of the case. on the other that the particular controversy argue moot, but that the merits should be alleged capable repetition likely addressed because the error is indefinitely. to evade review We have held that the merits of a moot case be reviewed

when the error is evades review. Chas tain v. 255 Ga. 432 enjoin policy this case is the refusal to solici Appellants right petition tation in the mall. base their claim of Georgia guarantees right peti the mall on the Constitution’s officials, tion and to recall elected and on the Recall Act of 1989. Georgia See 1983, I, I, IX; II, Constitution of Art. Sec. Par. Art. Sec. seq. II, statutory IV; Par. § and OCGA 21-4-1 et Due to the time imposed petitioners any limits effort, on the in a claim based on the almost to collect for a recall of an elected official would certainly appealed be moot the time it was to this court. conclude, therefore, We that this case falls within the limited class of though they cases that we review even are moot. argue shopping

2. Citizens centers,” malls are the “new town serving public square. They shopping the functions of assert although they operated, malls, are have become public They forum dedicated to the use. also assert that drafting legislature the Recall Act of intended for any place except for recall to be circulated where alcoholic bever- ages (a). They urge are served. OCGA 21-4-8 this court to construe guarantee public the to Constitution to access to malls petition for a recall election. recognizes represent po- This court malls a fertile petitioners in a recall election effort. source of tential convenience, however, does not create a constitutional Petitioners’ political activity. Lloyd private property of access to (1972), LE2d U. SC Corp. S. 551 that, the federal constitu- Supreme Court held under Stated United *2 shopping center operated a the owner of to prohibit of handbills or unrelated the distribution the is- operations of Most that have considered the center. states the require pri- do not determined that their state constitutions sue have political on their vately centers to activities owned See, v. Fiesta Mall Venture Mecham Recall Commit- premises. e.g., (767 tee, (1989); Pennsylvania So- Western Ariz. P2d 159 371 Co., v. General Ins. Campaign cialist Workers 1982 Connecticut Life (515 1331) (1986); Cologne Assoc., v. 192 A2d Pa. Westfarms Conn. 48 A2d operated here and property at issue is a owned open generally shopping, mall is to the for din- that its en- ing opening, entertainment. Since the mall’s owners have and activity political in the policy forced all solicitation and prohibiting a persons orga- all policy applied uniformly mall. The has been to and noth- regard nizations the content or We hold that without to format. ing sepa- Recall of the Constitution or the Act either rately together, of citizens to enter onto or establishes In property petition. holding so such Lloyd Corp. v. and adopt reasoning supra, we the of decline reasoning Supreme the the Court found to follow of California Center, 23 P2d Pruneyard Shopping Robins v. Cal.3d 899 (1979). concur, Benham, J., Judgment except All the Justices affirmed. specially.

who concurs Benham, Justice, concurring specially. apparent

It is from the of this case that the recall cam- record particular political process beginning point the paign, the which was completed. litigation, suggested has has this been is, therefore, I it appeal moot and must be dismissed. be, the should but I court has reached concur because believe this correct conclusion. Act, appeal Appellate

Under the Practice the dismissal of an is mandatory specific for the three instances contained “(3) (b) 5-6-48, [cit.], of is of one which subsection OCGA “A the moot questions presented Where have become moot.” question case is one which seeks to an abstract determine existing upon rights.” or which does not arise facts [Cit.] upon . . ‘This will own appeal its motion dismiss an affirmatively appears where it that a be of no benefit to complaining party. ap- the The fact that the [Cit.] pellants might possibly benefit derive some future from a adjudication question favorable on an abstract will not re- ” quire this court to retain decide and the case. [Cit.]’ [Cits.] course, moot, but, Of a case be the error because is ca- pable review, of evades the will be considered. 255 Ga. [Cits.] [Chastain 241) (1986).] present case, refusing injunction appellee’s policy against of and solicita- property, clearly repetition. tion on its commercial do believe, however, necessarily not it is such an error as will evade justify reaching review. order to merits of the constitutional involved, have pri- claims narrowed the issue to use property vate commercial specifically solicit for recall citizens, campaigns not politically do address the active using insist on political others purposes campaigns. other than recall This invites narrow *3 piecemeal litigation, requiring separately every politi- address purpose anyone cal for which wishes to use the commercial property of another. The much issue is broader and should be consid- in a single ered broader context campaign. than this While appellant in denying injunc- trial was correct I agree with employed the rationale this court in af- below, firming pru- judgment believe that better more proper dent be to for a wait case which to decide the broader issue to use

political purposes generally.

Decided June McLaughlin, Clark, Clark appellant. & C. Michael Kitchens, Kelley, Gaynes, Huprich Shmerling, P. & David Kitchens, Kelley, Mark A. appellee.

Altman, Levick, Levick, Sack, Kritzer & Mark J. Ju- Edward J. Edelson, lie amici curiae.