“Back to First Principles” – The Georgia Supreme Court Re-Inscribes a Strict Non-Delegation Rule and Rejects Federal-Style Third-Party Standing

1. Introduction

The consolidated appeals Republican National Committee v. Eternal Vigilance Action, Inc. and State of Georgia v. Eternal Vigilance Action, Inc. presented Georgia’s Supreme Court with a rare opportunity to recalibrate two fundamental doctrines: constitutional standing and the separation-of-powers “non-delegation” principle. Triggered by the State Election Board’s (“SEB”) adoption of seven election-related rules ahead of the 2024 general election, the litigation juxtaposed:

• Private individuals and NGOs (Eternal Vigilance Action, Georgia NAACP, and GCPA) challenging the rules;
• The State of Georgia and Republican intervenors defending them;
• Questions over who is entitled to sue, and whether the General Assembly validly empowered an executive-branch agency to legislate on elections.

Chief Justice Peterson’s opinion, writing for a unanimous Court, does three things with sweeping effect:

1. Resurrects a historically rigorous non-delegation test and overrules the 1990 outlier Dept. of Transp. v. City of Atlanta (“DOT”).
2. Scuttles federal-style “diversion-of-resources” and “associational” standing, overruling Aldridge v. Georgia Hospital & Travel Ass’n and progeny.
3. Clarifies that only one of five contested SEB rules survives; four are void; the validity of two others awaits remand.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• Standing: NGOs lack standing; individual voters Hall and Turner may challenge five rules as private voters; Hall’s claimed standing as a county election official is remanded.
• Federal Elections Clause: Trial court erred—federal precedent allows state legislatures to delegate election mechanics.
• Non-Delegation: Applying the reinstated doctrine, only the “Drop-Box Surveillance Rule” is valid. “Reasonable Inquiry,” “Examination,” “Hand-Count,” and “Drop-Box ID” rules exceed statutory authority. “Poll-Watcher” and “Daily Reporting” rules remain unresolved on remand.
• Key Holdings:
  • DOT (1990) expressly overruled; broad, unguided delegations are unconstitutional.
  • Aldridge (1983) and cases adopting federal associational standing also overruled.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited & Their Influence

The Court canvassed vast precedent, but several cases prove pivotal:

1. Dept. of Transp. v. City of Atlanta (1990) – previously allowed eminent-domain power if “reasonable, necessary, and in the public interest.” Labeled an “extreme outlier,” now overruled.
2. Sons of Confederate Veterans (2022) & Wasserman v. Franklin County (2025) – restored Georgia-specific standing doctrine focused on private-right injury; supplied the analytical backbone to reject federal injury-in-fact imports.
3. Aldridge v. GHTA (1983) – first adopted federal “associational standing.” Overruled as alien to Georgia’s constitutional text.
4. Glustrom (1950), Bohannon (1938), Phinizy (1899) – historic non-delegation cases requiring clear, judicially enforceable standards. Resurrected to eclipse DOT.
5. Moore v. Harper (U.S. 2023) & Arizona State Legislature (U.S. 2015) – block trial court’s reliance on a rigid Elections Clause interpretation.

3.2 Court’s Legal Reasoning

“The essential question is whether a statute delegates legislative authority—or merely directs an executive agency to execute the law.”

a) Step-by-Step Non-Delegation Framework Reaffirmed

1. Step 1 – Did the General Assembly actually delegate? Interpret the statute narrowly to avoid delegation if possible (“constitutional avoidance”).
2. Step 2 – Did the General Assembly itself possess the power? (Not disputed here—election regulation undeniably legislative.)
3. Step 3 – Are there objective, judicially enforceable guidelines? If not, the rule is void as law-making not law-executing.

b) Application to Each Rule

c) Standing Doctrine Overhauled

• No “diversion of resources” or “associational” standing—NGOs must show violation of their own private rights.
• Community-stakeholder standing stays limited to suits against local governments; does not extend to challenges against state agencies.
• Voter standing exists when a rule threatens the right to cast or have a vote counted—hence five rules are attackable, two are not.

3.3 Anticipated Impact

The Court’s decision will reverberate on multiple fronts:

1. Administrative Law: Agencies must now locate specific textual authority; broad grants of “uniformity” or “public interest” will not suffice. Expect increased litigation, statutory rewrites, and legislative “cleanup” bills.
2. Civil Procedure: NGO litigation strategies must change. Organizations can sue only where their own legal rights—not resources or members’ rights—are impaired.
3. Election Administration: County officials gain clarity that only rules tightly tied to statutory commands survive; SEB may need emergency rulemaking (or legislative ratification) before future elections.
4. Stare Decisis Jurisprudence: Adds another modern example of the Court discarding precedents that stray from constitutional text—signaling willingness to revisit other borrowed federal doctrines.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Non-Delegation Doctrine – The legislature cannot hand over its law-making power; it may assign ministerial tasks but must supply clear limits and standards.
• Standing – A litigant must show his own legal right was (or will imminently be) violated. Merely spending money or advocating for others’ rights is not enough.
• Constitutional Avoidance – Courts interpret statutes, where plausible, to avoid constitutional conflicts rather than strike them down.
• Elections Clause (U.S.) – Lets state “legislatures” set election rules but permits them to assign tasks to agencies or commissions, per SCOTUS.
• Stare Decisis – The principle of following precedent; nevertheless, Georgia applies a flexible test, overruling when a decision is clearly wrong and not relied on.

5. Conclusion

This decision marks a watershed in Georgia public-law doctrine. By overhauling standing rules and restoring an exacting non-delegation standard, the Court re-anchors Georgia jurisprudence in its own constitutional text and historical practice rather than federal analogues. Agencies must hew closely to legislative instructions; advocacy groups must litigate only their own rights. Legislators, regulators, and litigators alike must now navigate a landscape in which the judiciary demands sharper statutory scaffolding and clearer personal stakes. In the long run, the ruling stands to invigorate legislative accountability, streamline the docket to cases with genuine rights at stake, and ensure that executive actors execute—rather than invent—the law.