The Tri-County Journal
& Chattahoochee Chronicle
PO Box 850, 71 Webb Lane
Buena Vista, GA 31803
229-649-6397
tjournal@alltel.net

By RICHARD HARRIS (From the Sept. 6, 2006 issue)
   A group of Marion County residents recently announced their plans for a petition drive to overturn the County Commission’s decision to implement a new roadside garbage pickup system funded by user fees that each household will be required to pay. One of the petition organizers stated his belief that a petition that followed the instructions of Article IX, Section II of the Georgia Constitution would require the Marion County Probate Judge to schedule a special election on the issue.
   However, Juvenile Court Judge Wayne Jernigan Sr., who also serves as the attorney for the Marion County Commission, says the state’s constitution does not allow such petitions for special elections on local resolutions or laws, although its understandable that the wording of the article in question could be so interpreted by anyone not familiar with the legalese of the constitution and relevant court cases on the subject.
   Judge Jernigan said two simple words – local acts – are the cause of the confusion. While Article IX, Section II (often referred to as the “home rule” section) plainly states that local residents may petition for a special election to repeal “local acts,” according to Jernigan, “local acts” are acts passed by the Georgia Legislature affecting single counties (when the state government passes a “local” or “county” act that doesn’t apply to the rest of the counties in the state).
   He said votes by local commissioners to pass local laws or resolutions are not subject to the “home rule” provision.
   An example of a “local act” that would have been subject to the home rule provision, if residents had objected, is when the Georgia Legislature voted to change the charter of the Marion County Commission to include five districts/commissioners instead of three. Since it was an act passed by the state and applicable to a single county, local residents could have attempted to use the home rule provision to petition for a special election to overturn the state’s vote.
   Jernigan also provided a couple of relevant court cases as examples. These include “Commissioners of Wayne County v. Smith” (1978) in which an attempt was made to use the “home rule” section of the constitution to change a decision regarding the appointment of members to a hospital authority board. The court ruled that the county commission’s decision was not subject to reversal through the home rule provision.