Carter v. Burson (1973)

Compare Goldrush II v. City of Marietta, 267 Ga. 683, 685 (2) (a) ( 482 SE2d 347 ) (1997); Carter v. Burson, 230 Ga. 511, 518 (3) ( 198 SE2d 151 ) (1973).

Accord, Wetz, supra, 168 N.W. 835, 847 (North Dakota’s two provisions are designed to prevent “log-rolling and joker practices which are so familiar to students of legislation”); Carter, supra, 198 S.E.2d 151, 156 (referring to Georgia’s separate-vote and single subject rules, the court observed that “ ‘the evils [of logrolling] to be prevented by prohibiting such a practice are as apparent in the one case as in the other’ ”); Petition No. 314, supra, 1980 OK 174 , 625 P.2d …

Sears v. State of Ga., 232 Ga. 547, 555-556 (4) ( 208 SE2d 93 ) (1974); see also Goldrush II v. City of Marietta, 267 Ga. 683, 686 (2) (b) ( 482 SE2d 347 ) (1997); Donaldson v. Dept. of Transp., 262 Ga. 49, 51 (1) ( 414 SE2d 638 ) (1992); Carter v. Burson, 230 Ga. 511, 521-522 (5) ( 198 SE2d 151 ) (1973).

II, § 8). [8] See, e.g., Carter v. Burson, 230 Ga. 511 , 198 S.E.2d 151, 156 (1973) (discussing the state's constitutional separate amendment rule and acknowledging its substantive component); State ex rel.

See, e.g., Missourians to Protect the Initiative Process v. Blunt, 799 S.W.2d 824, 830-31 (Mo. 1990); Milwaukee Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression v. Elections Bd. of Wis., 317 N.W.2d 420, 425 (Wis. 1982); Carter v. Burson, 198 S.E.2d 151, 156 (Ga. 1973); Ohio ex rel.

That standard requires courts to determine “‘whether all of the parts . . . of the constitutional amendment are germane to the accomplishment of a single objective.’” Wall v. Bd. of Elections of Chatham County, 242 Ga. 566, 570 (3) ( 250 SE2d 408 ) (1978) (applying single subject rule as provided in the Constitution of 1976 and quoting Carter v. Burson, 230 Ga. 511, 519 (3) ( 198 SE2d 151 ) (1973)).

The correctness of that ruling is the only issue to be decided by this Court in this case. 3 “The test of whether an Act or a constitutional amendment violates the multiple subject matter rule is whether all of the parts of the Act or of the constitutional amendment are germane to the accomplishment of a single objective.” Carter v. Burson, 230 Ga. 511, 519 (3) ( 198 SE2d 151 ) (1973).

Therefore, when the law is authoritatively abrogated,... the office no longer exists.” Carter v. Burson, 230 Ga. 511, 517 ( 198 SE2d 151 ) (1973).

Co. v. Gibson, 85 Ga. 1, 20 ( 11 SE 442 ) (1890); Cady v. Jardine, 185 Ga. 9 ( 193 SE 869 ) (1937); Williamson v. Housing Authority of Augusta, 186 Ga. 673, 679 ( 199 SE 43 ) (1938); Fields v. Arnall, 199 Ga. 491, 495 ( 34 SE2d 692 ) (1945); Carter v. Burson, 230 Ga. 511, 519 ( 198 SE2d 151 ) (1973).

See also Carter v. Burson, 230 Ga. 511, 520-21 (4) ( 198 SE2d 151 ) (1973) (although the various legislation dealt with four separate and unrelated constitutional provisions, they were related to and were germane to their single purpose of removing the name and office of state treasurer).

See, e.g., Carter v. Burson, 230 Ga. 511 , 198 S.E.2d 151, 156 (1973); Moore v. Shanahan, 207 Kan. 1 , 486 P.2d 506, 516 (1971); City of Raton v. Sproule, 78 N.M. 138 , 429 P.2d 336, 342 (1967).

See Carter v. Burson, 230 Ga. 511 ( 198 SE2d 151 ) (1973).