# Brooks v. Georgia State Board of Elections

> District Court, S.D. Georgia · April 22, 1992 · 790 F. Supp. 1156

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9691324

## Case

- **Full name:** Tyrone BROOKS, Et Al., Plaintiffs, v. GEORGIA STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, Et Al., Defendants
- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Georgia
- **Decided:** April 22, 1992
- **Citations:** 790 F. Supp. 1156; 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6030; 1992 WL 89161
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Bowen
- **Judges:** Kravitch, Edenfield, Bowen
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9691324

## Opinion text

BOWEN, District Judge,
concurring specially.
I concur with the foregoing order only because its provisions are consistent with the majority’s earlier opinion and the law of the land as announced by the Supreme Court. I observe, however, that the judicial system of Georgia is already in disarray. Dependent only upon the accident of who preceded them in office, some superior court judges are now freely engaged in contested elections while others are “holdovers” who don’t presently have to run but who face an uncertain future. Meanwhile, the Governor appoints some judges to positions to which they can be later elected without hindrance, yet he cannot fill much-needed, newly-created positions because of the constraints of this litigation. The distinction is legalistic, arbitrary and nonsensical. If we had set out to contrive a set of circumstances which would demoralize the State’s trial judiciary, frustrate the legitimate efforts of the State’s Chief Executive, confuse the public, and actually retard the advancement of minorities, our effort would be crowned with success.
The courts have only given a logical, if debatable, interpretation to an Act of Congress. No one intended the present effect of the Voting Rights Act. Judges should not have any semblance of an identifiable constituency to whom they owe allegiance. The Congress should act courageously and quickly to extricate us from this mess.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9691324. Public record. Not legal advice.