Thursday, October 16, 2008
News Jim Powell-Karen Handel case summary
Posted by Thomas Wheatley @thomaswheatley on Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 3:23 PM
For you political junkies out there **cough**Grift, sara**cough**, here's the state Supreme Court case summary of the Jim Powell and Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel residency slugfest. These excellent write-ups are penned by Jane Hansen, the court's public information officer. She's a former AJC reporter and two-time Pulitzer Prize finalist.
Monday, October 20, 200810:00 A.M. Session
HANDEL V. POWELL (S09A0074)
This appeal stems from a dispute between Secretary of State Karen Handel and James R. Powell, who is running for a seat on the Public Service Commission. Handel is appealing a Fulton County Superior Court ruling that sided with Powell, overturning Handel’s decision that Powell was ineligible to run based on his residency. The Supreme Court agreed to expedite oral arguments in the case.
FACTS: In June 2008, the Secretary challenged Powell’s qualifications a month after he filed his intent to run as a Democrat against Republican Lauren McDonald for the PSC District 4 post. Handel argued that Powell did not reside in the district he seeks to represent. At the hearing before an administrative law judge, Handel presented evidence that Powell purchased property in 2006 in Towns County, which is in District 4, but that his main residence remains in Cobb County, which is not in that district. Handel argued that the homestead exemption Powell has on the Cobb property establishes an irrefutable presumption of legal residence and proves he does not live in District 4. State law requires PSC candidates to live in the district they want to represent for at least 12 months prior to the election.But the administrative law judge disagreed, concluding that the preponderance of evidence showed Powell met the residency requirements. Not only does Powell spend more than half his time in the district, the judge found, but he also attends church, pays taxes, receives mail, and has registered to vote in District 4. The judge also found that in 2007, Powell attempted to transfer his homestead exemption from Cobb to Towns County, but it was denied because he missed the filing deadline. Despite the judge’s findings, Handel decided Powell was unqualified to run. He appealed to the Fulton Superior Court, which reversed Handel’s decision. She now appeals to the state Supreme Court.
ARGUMENTS: The trial court erred in overturning the Secretary’s decision, Handel’s attorneys argue. Under state law, reversal of an administrative decision is precluded if there is any evidence to support the agency’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. When an agency decision is subject to judicial review, the court must give deference to the agency’s interpretation of the statutes it is charged with enforcing. Handel argues that “domicile” is the place where one intends to permanently remain, “legal resident” is used throughout the law to mean domicile, and a person must be a “legal resident” to qualify as a candidate. Powell maintained a homestead exemption on his Cobb property, and he did not withdraw it until May 2008. Georgia’s residency statute states that the address where a person has claimed a homestead exemption “shall be deemed the person’s residence address.” The trial court ignored this law and others in determining that a homestead exemption is insufficient to determine the person’s legal residence.
Powell argues that under Georgia law, an agency’s factual findings can be reversed if they are “clearly erroneous” in view of all the evidence. The Secretary’s sole basis for disqualifying Powell as a candidate was her interpretation of state law. That is a question of law subject to the court’s review, and the law does not permit her to arbitrarily rely on a single factor in the law. Handel has narrowly focused on homestead exemption as a sign of residency. But it is not the only factor, Powell argues. Rather the residency statute lists 15. Ultimately, it is the candidate’s intent that governs residency. And other factors listed in the law show that Powell intends to make District 4 his domicile. Although Handel is critical of the timing of Powell’s removal of his Cobb homestead exemption, it is not the motive but his intent to establish legal residency that is the proper question. In deciphering intent, the Secretary must look to all the facts; here she has focused on one. The Supreme Court has never held that a homestead exemption alone was sufficient to disqualify a candidate, Powell argues.
Attorneys for Appellant (Handel): Thurbert Baker, Attorney General, Dennis Dunn, Dep. A.G., Stefan Ritter, Sr. Asst. A.G., Calandra Almond, Asst. A.G.
Attorneys for Appellee (Powell): A. Lee Parks, Andrew Coffman
Latest in Fresh Loaf
-
Town hall meeting on Ashford, er, Brookhaven… whatever 3
Someone has proposed turning DeKalb County into one big fat city
-
Ringling Bros. Circus kicks off tonight, but there's an elephant in the room 6
Or, tent, I suppose
-
Blogging today: Lines get fuzzier at AJC and elsewhere 11
New AJC blog blurs line between editorial and marketing
- More »
Author Archives
-
Georgia's waiting list for HIV drug is longest in nation 6
More than 1,300 people are waiting for assistance
-
Man who threatened to jump from Midtown tower — until T.I. stepped in — tells story 3
T.I. convinced Josh Starks not to jump
- More »
Comments (0)