GA Code § 28-2-2 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 28 - General Assembly|Chapter 2 - Apportionment of House of Representatives and Senate; Qualifications of Members|§ 28-2-2. Apportionment and Qualifications for the Senate

  There shall be 56 members of the Senate. The General Assembly shall by general law divide the state into 56 Senate districts which shall be composed of a portion of a county or a county or counties or a combination thereof and shall be represented by one Senator elected only by the electors of such district.   A member of the Senate shall be a resident of the district which such member represents and at the time of such member's election shall have been a resident of the territory embraced within such district for at least one year preceding such time.     (Code 1981, §28-2-2, enacted by Ga. L. 2011, Ex. Sess., p. 139, § 3/SB 1EX.)   Cross references.   - Constitutional requirements as to apportionment, Ga. Const. 1983, Art. III, Sec. II, Para. II.   Constitutional requirements as to qualifications, Ga. Const. 1983, Art. III, Sec. II, Para. III.   Disqualifications, Ga. Const. 1983, Art. III, Sec. II, Para. IV.   Vacancies, Ga. Const. 1983, Art. III, Sec. IV, Para. V.    Designation of congressional districts of state, § 21-2-4.   Editor's notes.   - This Code section formerly pertained to apportionment and qualifications for the Senate. The former Code section was based on Ga. L. 1906, p. 80, § 1; Civil Code 1910, § 334; Ga. L. 1918, p. 84, §§ 1-4; Code 1933, § 47-102; Ga. L. 1945, p. 1042, §§ 1, 2; Ga. L. 1946, p. 42, § 1; Ga. L. 1962, Ex. Sess., p. 7, § 9; Ga. L. 1964, p. 127, § 2; Ga. L. 1964, p. 691, §§ 1, 2; Ga. L. 1966, p. 245, §§ 1, 2; Ga. L. 1966, p. 561, § 1; Ga. L. 1967, p. 159, § 1; Ga. L. 1968, p. 36, § 1; Ga. L. 1968, p. 560, § 1; Ga. L. 1970, p. 557, § 1; Ga. L. 1971, Ex. Sess., p. 69, § 1; Ga. L. 1972, p. 237, § 2; Ga. L. 1974, p. 1233, § 1; Ga. L. 1981, Ex. Sess., p. 103, § 1; Ga. L. 1982, p. 444, §§ 1, 2; Ga. L. 1984, p. 394, § 1; Ga. L. 1988, p. 1465, § 1; Ga. L. 1991, Ex. Sess., p. 124, § 1; Ga. L. 1992, p. 59, § 1; Ga. L. 1992, p. 693, § 1; Ga. L. 1993, p. 863, § 2; Ga. L. 1994, p. 174, § 2; Ga. L. 1995, Ex. Sess., p. 6, §§ 1-3; Ga. L. 1997, p. 163, §§ 1-3; Ga. L. 1998, p. 21, § 1; Ga. L. 1999, p. 42, § 1; Ga. L. 2000, p. 1676, § 1; Ga. L. 2001, Ex. Sess., p. 2, §§ 1, 2; Ga. L. 2006, p. 23, § 1/SB 386 and was repealed by Ga. L. 2011, Ex. Sess., p. 139, § 3/SB 1EX, effective August 24, 2011.   Ga. L. 2011, Ex. Sess., p. 139, § 1/SB 1EX, not codified by the General Assembly, provides: "This Act shall be known and may be cited as the 'Georgia Senate Reapportionment Act of 2011.'"   Ga. L. 2011, Ex. Sess., p. 139, § 2/SB 1EX, as amended by Ga. L. 2012, p. 62, § 1/SB 430 and Ga. L. 2015, p. 1413, § 1/HB 566 and the attachment thereto identified as "Plan Name: Senprop1 Plan Type: Senate Administrator: S028 User: Gina", not codified by the General Assembly, contains the description of the state senate districts and related definitions, effectiveness, and applicability provisions.   Ga. L. 2011, Ex. Sess., p. 139, § 4/SB 1EX, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that: "The apportionment of the Senate and the description of Senate Districts 1 through 56 provided for pursuant to this Act shall supersede and replace the apportionment of the Senate and the description of Senate districts provided for pursuant to the 2004 interim Senate apportionment plan of the Special Master adopted by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in Larios v. Cox, 314 F. Sup. 2d 1357 (N.D. Ga. 2004), as well as the revised statutory description of Senate Districts 46, 47, and 49."   Ga. L. 2012, p. 62, § 2/SB 430, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that: "This section shall become effective upon the approval of this Act by the Governor or upon this Act becoming law without such approval. The remaining sections of this Act shall become effective upon receipt of preclearance pursuant to Section 5 of the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended; provided, however, that, if this Act has not received preclearance pursuant to Section 5 of the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, by the time of the beginning of qualifying for the 2012 general primary, the remaining sections of this Act shall not be effective for the primary and general elections of 2012 for the purpose of electing members of the Senate who are to take office in 2013, but shall become effective on January 1, 2014, provided this Act has received preclearance as provided by law. If this Act has not received preclearance pursuant to Section 5 of the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, by December 31, 2013, this Act shall stand automatically repealed by operation of law on January 1, 2014." This Act became effective April 13, 2012.   Law reviews.   - For note, "Perdue v. Baker: Who Has the Ultimate Power over Litigation on Behalf of the State of Georgia - the Governor or the Attorney General?," see 21 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 751 (2005). For note, "Partisan Gerrymandering and Georgia: Red, White, and Blue or Just Red and Blue?," see 35 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 487 (2019). For comment, "Pinpoint Redistricting and the Minimization of Partisan Gerrymandering," see 59 Emory L.J. 211 (2009).   JUDICIAL DECISIONS    Senatorial districts are drawn, so far as possible, along existing county lines. Fortson v. Dorsey, 379 U.S. 433, 85 S. Ct. 498, 13 L. Ed. 2d 401 (1965).   Unconstitutionality of 2001 House Reapportionment Plan and 2002 Senate Reapportionment Plan.    - Georgia's state legislative reapportionment plans (House plan provided by O.C.G.A. § 28-2-1 as amended by Ga. L. 2001, Ex. Sess. p. 425, §§ 1-3; and Senate plan provided by Ga. L. 2002, p. 148, § 2) plainly violated the one person, one vote principle embodied in the Equal Protection Clause because each deviated from population equality by a total of 9.98% of the ideal district population and there were no legitimate, consistently applied state policies which justify these population deviations. Instead, the plans arbitrarily and discriminatorily diluted and debased the weight of certain citizens' votes by intentionally and systematically underpopulating districts in rural south Georgia and inner-city Atlanta, correspondingly overpopulating the districts in suburban areas surrounding Atlanta, and by underpopulating the districts held by incumbent Democrats. Larios v. Cox, 300 F. Supp. 2d 1320 (N.D. Ga. 2004), aff'd, 542 U.S. 947, 124 S. Ct. 2806, 159 L. Ed. 2d 831 (2004).   Criteria for 2004 Court-Ordered House and Senate Reapportionment Plans.   - Special Master appointed to prepare state legislative reapportionment plans pursuant to court order was required to consider three principal criteria in drafting such plans: the U.S. Constitution; the federal Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973 et seq., and neutral principles of redistricting such as compactness, contiguity, minimizing the splits of counties and municipalities, recognizing communities of interest, maintaining the cores of existing districts, and using well-defined boundaries as district lines, insofar as those policies did not conflict with the primary considerations of compliance with the one person, one vote principle and the Voting Rights Act. Special Master was also required to prefer single-member districts over multi-member districts. Larios v. Cox, 306 F. Supp. 2d 1214 (N.D. Ga. 2004).   Adoption of 2004 Court-Ordered House and Senate Reapportionment Plans.   - Special Master's state legislative reapportionment plans ("Special Master's 1-B Plans") were adopted as the court's plans, since those plans complied fully with the Constitution and the principle of one person, one vote, the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973 et seq., and the traditional redistricting guidelines of compactness, contiguity, minimizing the splits of counties, municipalities, and precincts, recognizing communities of interest, and avoiding multi-member districts. The court also was completely satisfied that the Special Master considered comments and objections concerning political incumbency as only a subordinated and secondary consideration. Larios v. Cox, 314 F. Supp. 2d 1357 (N.D. Ga. 2004).    Cited in  Toombs v. Fortson, 241 F. Supp. 65 (N.D. Ga. 1965); Toombs v. Fortson, 277 F. Supp. 821 (N.D. Ga. 1967); Millican v. Georgia, 351 F. Supp. 447 (N.D. Ga. 1972).   RESEARCH REFERENCES   Am. Jur. 2d.   - 25 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections, §§ 11 et seq., 31 et seq. 63C Am. Jur. 2d, Public Officers and Employees, §§ 36 et seq., 434, 450 et seq., 460, 462.   C.J.S.   - 67 C.J.S., Officers and Public Employees, § 35. 81A C.J.S., States, §§ 94 et seq., 121 et seq., 133 et seq.   ALR.    - Inequality of population or lack of compactness of territory as invalidating apportionment of representatives, 2 A.L.R. 1337.