## Facts

- After the 2000 census, Georgia enacted a State Senate redistricting plan (Act 1EX6).
- Because Georgia was covered by § 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the State sought federal preclearance through a declaratory judgment action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
- The three-judge D.C. district court denied relief, finding the State failed to prove the plan lacked a retrogressive effect on African-American voting strength.
- The General Assembly later enacted a second plan (Act 444), expressly making its operation conditional on a “final determination” concerning the first plan’s validity.
- The Attorney General, acting for the State, appealed the D.C. district court decision directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.
- After taking office, the Governor directed the Attorney General to dismiss the appeal; the Attorney General refused.
- The Governor sought mandamus in Georgia superior court to compel dismissal; the superior court denied relief.
- The Governor appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia.

## Issues

1. Whether Georgia law gave the Governor authority to compel the Attorney General to dismiss the State’s pending appeal in federal court.
2. Whether the Attorney General had statutory authority (and related duty) to continue the redistricting litigation to a “final determination” despite the Governor’s contrary directive.
3. Whether mandamus could issue when the Governor lacked a “clear legal right” to the requested relief.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the denial of mandamus.
- The court held the Attorney General had constitutional and statutory authority to represent the State and to control and continue the appeal.
- The court rejected the view that the Attorney General was merely the Governor’s subordinate for litigation decisions where the General Assembly assigned litigation control to the Attorney General.
- Because the governing framework vested litigation authority in the Attorney General—and Act 444 linked effectiveness to a “final determination” in the first plan’s litigation—the Governor failed to show a clear legal right to compel dismissal.

## Legal Principles

- Mandamus is available only when the petitioner shows a clear legal right to the relief sought and a corresponding clear legal duty on the respondent.
- The Georgia Constitution permits the General Assembly to define the Attorney General’s duties; statutes may vest the Attorney General with authority to represent the State in specified litigation, including appeals.
- Legislative allocation of litigation authority can reflect a policy choice within the General Assembly’s lawmaking function and is not subject to unilateral reallocation by the Governor.
- Where statutory structure conditions subsequent legislation on a “final determination” of prior litigation, continuation of that litigation to final resolution may fall within the Attorney General’s assigned responsibilities.

## Conclusion

The court held that the Governor could not use mandamus to force the Attorney General to dismiss the State’s U.S. Supreme Court appeal because Georgia law vested litigation control for the matter in the Attorney General and the Governor lacked a clear legal right to override that assignment.


Perdue v. Baker, 586 S.E.2d 606 (Ga. 2003)