Georgia prosecutors are demanding the repeal of a new state law that undermines their authority – Orlando Sentinel

By JEFF AMY (Associated Press)

DECATUR, Georgia (AP) – Four Georgia district attorneys are asking a judge to overturn a law creating a commission to discipline and remove prosecutors on the grounds that it violates the US and Georgia constitutions.

The attack on Georgia’s Prosecuting Attorneys Qualifications Commission, filed in Fulton County Superior Court in Atlanta on Wednesday, comes after Republicans pushed through legislation establishing the body earlier this year. Republican Gov. Brian Kemp vowed when signing the bill that it would curb “far-left prosecutors” who are “making our communities less safe.”

Sherry Boston, the district attorney in the predominantly Democratic Atlanta suburb of DeKalb County and lead plaintiff, described the matter as “bigger than Georgia.”

“We’re talking about prosecutorial discretion and prosecutorial independence, both of which have come under strong attack in recent years,” Boston told The Associated Press.

Like GOP candidates across the country, Kemp ran crime-fighting campaigns in 2022, accusing Democrats of coddling criminals. They are fighting back after some progressive prosecutors filed fewer drug possession cases and called for shorter sentences.

It’s “incredibly convenient” for Republicans to stand up to progressive prosecutors, said Carissa Hessick, a law professor at the University of North Carolina who leads the Prosecutors and Politics Project. Similar efforts have taken place in Tennessee, Missouri, Indiana, Pennsylvania and Florida.

“As the progressive law enforcement movement took off nationwide, I think it was an easy target for people on the right, especially when there was a spike in certain crimes in certain cities,” Hessick said.

The Georgian law raises fundamental questions about the discretion of the prosecutor’s office. The bedrock of the American justice system is that a prosecutor decides what charges to bring and what the penalty is.

Chris Carr, Georgia’s Republican Attorney General, said he will defend the law.

“Unfortunately, some prosecutors have embraced the progressive movement across the country refusing to enforce the law. This is a dereliction of duty and Georgia communities are suffering as a result,” Carr wrote on Platform X, formerly known as Twitter.

District attorneys challenging the Georgia law include Boston, Flynn Broady of Cobb County in suburban Atlanta, Jared Williams of Augusta and neighboring Burke County, and Jonathan Adams of Butts, Lamar and Monroe counties south of Atlanta . Adams is Republican, the others are Democrats.

They say the law goes beyond the bounds by requiring district attorneys to review each case on its individual merits. Instead, district attorneys argue they should be able to continue with policies that deny prosecution of entire categories of crimes.

They argue that because the Georgia constitution places district attorneys within the state’s judiciary, the governor and legislature cannot dictate law enforcement rules, making the law violate the constitutional separation of powers. The mandate to investigate minor crimes also distracts prosecutors from more serious crimes, they say.

“This duty is impractical because it limits district attorneys’ ability to define enforcement priorities and approaches and distracts them from prosecuting legitimate cases,” the lawsuit states.

The lawsuit states that state law will force district attorneys to investigate crimes such as adultery, bestiality and fornication. Adams, for example, said that after the law went into effect on July 1, he rescinded his policy requiring judges to dismiss adultery charges.

The law could also mandate prosecution for possession of small amounts of marijuana, even if the state crime lab refuses to test marijuana seizures of less than an ounce (28 grams).

The Liberal group supporting the lawsuit says the Republican Party-backed law creates a bias in favor of law enforcement.

Josh Rosenthal of the Public Rights Project says the threat of sanctions creates “a one-sided preference to always say yes, the answer is prosecution or more prosecution, regardless of the seriousness” of a crime.

Plaintiffs also argue that prohibiting written or oral guidelines could prevent them from sending offenders into diversionary programs that resolve cases without criminal convictions.

The Commission for the Supervision of Prosecutors is not yet active. But plaintiffs say the law is now ripe for a court challenge because it already violates the right to free speech by barring prosecutors from discussing their prosecutorial philosophy with voters.

“This legislation violates voter choice,” Williams said. People didn’t choose us as robots with a law degree. They chose us to make the difficult decisions that will ultimately protect our communities.”

Efforts to scrutinize prosecutors in some other states have encountered legal obstacles. Last month a judge overturned a law in Tennessee that allows the attorney general to intervene in death penalty cases.

In Florida, a federal judge found that Gov. Ron DeSantis illegally targeted Tampa-area state attorney Andrew Warren because he was a Democrat who publicly advocated abortion and transgender rights. But the state Supreme Court said Andrew Warren waited too long to seek reinstatement.