Gwinnett County D.A. Becomes Second Metro Prosecutor To File Lawsuit Over Republican-Backed Nonpartisan Voting Law Many Say Is Discriminatory

Multiple metro Atlanta prosecutors have launched a coordinated legal battle against a controversial new state law that forces local district attorney elections to become nonpartisan, targeting a handful of Georgia’s most diverse and Democratic-leaning counties.

The legal fight centers on Georgia House Bill 369. The law mandates that local government positions—including district attorneys—must switch to a nonpartisan format starting in 2028.

However, the law applies exclusively to counties that use an appointed medical examiner instead of an elected coroner.

Out of Georgia’s 159 counties, only five meet this narrow definition: Clayton, Cobb, DeKalb, Fulton, and Gwinnett. All five are heavily populated, left-leaning metro Atlanta jurisdictions currently represented by Black women district attorneys.

A Dual-Front Legal Battle

The opposition solidified into two distinct lawsuits filed in the Fulton County Superior Court:

The First Wave: DeKalb County District Attorney Sherry Boston initiated the first lawsuit, joined by fellow prosecutors Fani Willis of Fulton County, Sonya Allen of Cobb County, and Tasha Mosley of Clayton County.

The Second Wave: Gwinnett County District Attorney Patsy Austin-Gatson filed a separate, independent lawsuit. Attorneys for Austin-Gatson noted that as the largest county impacted by the law, Gwinnett voters required their own distinct legal voice in court.

“I felt that I have an obligation to stand up for this community in the face of a law that encroaches on my duty as an elected official,” Austin-Gatson said at a Friday news conference.

The Constitutional Challenge

Attorneys for the district attorneys argue that House Bill 369 is structurally flawed and violates the Georgia Constitution on three primary fronts:

Uniformity: Plaintiffs argue the law violates the state’s Uniformity Clause, which dictates that general laws must apply equally statewide rather than singling out specific jurisdictions based on unrelated criteria like coroner systems.

Equal Protection: The lawsuits claim the measure disenfranchises metro voters by denying them party-affiliation indicators on ballots and unfairly penalizes candidates by cutting off access to political party fundraising networks.

Legislative Maneuvering: Legal counsel alleges lawmakers violated state rules by reviving the policy. A nearly identical measure, Senate Bill 573, failed a full Senate vote earlier in the session before its language was rapidly tacked onto HB 369.

Clash of Intentions

The litigation highlights a deep political and racial divide between state lawmakers and local metro officials.

“This legislation is very strange and prejudicial,” Austin-Gatson said, framing the law as a partisan attempt to weaken Democratic infrastructure in diverse communities.

Republican backers of the bill reject allegations of bias. State Senator John Albers defended the legislation, arguing that removing party politics from local judicial offices reduces polarization and ensures voters focus entirely on candidate qualifications.

But Republicans have largely struggled to explain why the law would only be necessary in certain heavily Black, Minority-Majority, and Democratic-leaning metro counties and not larger Republican counties in the metro such as Cherokee and Forsyth.

Or for larger counties outside of the metro area such as Muscogee (Columbus) and Macon-Bibb and Augusta-Richmond.

The case remains pending in superior court, with both sides bracing for a legal battle that could redefine local election structures across the state before the 2028 cycle.