Perdue v. Lake

Sonny Perdue, in his capacity as Governor, and the State Election Board “Appellants” appeal the trial court’s determination that the 2006 Photo-ID Act “2006 Act” violates Art. II, Sec. 1, Pars. II and III of the Georgia Constitution by requiring in-person voters to present a photo-ID verifying their identity. Because the sole remaining plaintiff in this case, Rosalind L. Lake,1 lacks standing to challenge the constitutionality of the 2006 Act, we reverse.

1. In deciding this matter, we must determine whether the trial court had the appropriate jurisdiction over the underlying case to reach the conclusions that it did. Specifically, we must determine whether Lake had standing to pursue her claims. “The only prerequisite to attacking the constitutionality of a statute is a showing that it is hurtful to the attacker.” Citation and punctuation omitted. Agan v. State , 272 Ga. 540, 542 1 533 SE2d 60 2000. As a general rule, “standing must be determined at the time at which the plaintiff’s complaint is filed” in order to place an actual case or controversy within the purview of the court. See, e. g., Focus on the Family v. Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority , 344 F3d 1263, 1272 11th Cir. 2003; Ga. Power Co. v. Allied Chem. Co. , 233 Ga. 558 212 SE2d 628 1975. In other words, the plaintiff must be able to show that he or she has been harmed at the time that the complaint is filed alleging a constitutional violation.