It is nice to know in these days of heightened threats of biological and chemical terrorism, mobilization for war, nuclear proliferation and other serious, truly dangerous matters that Georgia can create a "Constitutional Crisis" where the downside is not the utter destruction and extinction of humankind. But on the scale of electoral politics in Georgia, the fight brewing between Governor Sonny Perdue and Attorney General Thurbert Baker is a high stakes, take no prisoners battle royale. The prize is no less than the right to control the State of Georgia's politics for the next ten years.

In case you've been huddling in your "safe room" and didn't hear, the Supreme Court of the United States ("SCOTUS )surprised observers by deciding that it would hear Georgia Democrats' appeal of a lower court's decision that the Democrat gerrymandered "partisan" redistricting map drawn after the last Census discriminated against African-Americans. Accordingly, as has happened every decade for at least the past thirty years, a federal court once again ruled that a Democrat drawn redistricting map was racially discriminatory and illegal. This time, the Democrats argued that the map could not be illegal because it was not their intention to discriminate on the basis of race. This time, the Democrats argued that although it WAS certainly their intention to discriminate against citizens of the State of Georgia, this discrimination was on the basis of political affiliation. This time, the Democrats said, their discriminatory maps should pass muster because it was their openly and frequently stated and readily apparent intention to draw maps that discriminated against Republican voters. The Democrats argued that it was ok for certain citizens of the State to be openly treated as second class citizens as long as the ones being discriminated against were Republicans.

In order to protect their admittedly discriminatory maps, the Democrats, then in monopoly control of all of the levers of state government, paid hundreds of thousands of the taxpayer's dollars to so-called Special Attorneys General ("SAGs") to appeal the lower court's decision that the maps were illegal. In case you don't know it, SAGs are attorneys in private law firms acting on behalf of the State in certain legal matters ranging from litigation to bond issuance. What was happening in this case, however, was that the SAGs were being paid by taxpayers of the State of Georgia to defend maps that admittedly discriminated against half of them. In essence, half of the taxpayers footing the bill were paying to defend maps which made them second class citizens through intentionally and quite purposefully diluting their votes.

When the earthquake that was the 2002 elections came along and Georgia Republicans finally broke through the system of political apartheid that had controlled Georgia for more than 130 years, Georgia Republicans controlled the Governor's Mansion and then with the help of a little persuasion controlled the State Senate. But the appeal from the Georgia Democrats to save their partisan maps sat, largely unnoticed, in the United States Supreme Court. That is, until the SCOTUS granted certiorari.

Now, there is a Republican Governor who, understandably does not want to spend taxpayers' money to defend maps that admittedly and quite intentionally discriminated against the Governor's party and a Democrat Attorney General who did. Even without a partisan spin on it, here was a Republican Governor who did not want to spend taxpayer's money to defend maps that intentionally discriminated against half of them. Thus, a nice little legal issue was born. Who decides Georgia's litigation strategy? Who gets to decide whether to continue the Democrat appeal to save maps that admittedly were drawn for the stated purpose of partisan political advantage? And better yet, who is the Attorney General's client, the Governor or the people of the State of Georgia?

I don't know how the legal issues will filter out; but it is readily apparent that from the viewpoint of ALL of the citizens of the State of Georgia, Thurbert Baker's position is indefensible. His argument that his intention in defending maps that blatantly and intentionally discriminate against half of the citizens of the State is to protect the rights of "All of the Citizens of Georgia" is disingenious at best and downright silly at worst. There is quote after quote after quote in the papers during the redistricting process from Thurbert Baker's Democrat brethren that it was clearly, patently and unashamedly their intention to discriminate against half of the citizens of Georgia. It was their stated intention to "pack" Republicans in overly large districts, thus decreasing the effect of each voter's vote. It was their stated intention to "spread" Democrats in underpopulated districts, thus increasing the effect of each voter's vote. They even talked about the maps in terms of "Maximum Democrat Opportunity" scores. Therefore, it is simply ludicrous for Thurbert Baker to say that his defense of the maps is to protect ALL of the citizens of Georgia. Every Democrat who could find a microphone during redistricting bragged that the purpose of the maps was to discriminate against Republicans (who actually make up a majority of the voters in the State). The Attorney General's argument is that he has unfettered and unchecked discretion to use State funds to defend admitted discrimination against a majority of the voters of the State who actually pay those funds.

I don't know how the law will turn out on whether the Governor or the Attorney General gets to direct strategy in lawsuits involving the State. But I do know that Thurbert Baker's defense of open, blatant and quite intentional discrimination against Republican voters under the guise of protecting the rights of "All of the Citizens of Georgia" is as revolting as it is plain wrong. If the Supreme Court of Georgia decides this "Constitutional Crisis" in favor of the Attorney General, the Governor should use his other Constitutional powers that don't emanate from the Attorney General and refuse to pay the fees of the SAGs whose purpose it is to protect only Democrats rather than all of the citizens of the State. It may be that if the SAGs want to work for free under the Attorney General's direction, the Governor might not be able to stop them; but he can certainly tell them that they WILL be working for free. Not a single more penny of taxpayer's funds should be used to defend maps whose authors proudly and openly proclaimed that their sole purpose was partisan political advantage regardless of the will of a majority of the taxpayers. The Attorney General might be able to get his authority to pursue a morally corrupt course of action; but he shouldn't be able to get any money to exercise it.