The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued a ruling Thursday in *Baker v. City of Atlanta*, addressing constitutional questions surrounding municipal restrictions on petition signature gathering by non-residents. The case involves four DeKalb County residents who sought to collect signatures in Atlanta for a local referendum aimed at repealing a controversial city ordinance.
Lisa Baker, Jacqueline Dougherty, Keyanna Jones, and Amelia Weltner filed suit against the City of Atlanta after being barred from gathering petition signatures due to their non-resident status. The women live in DeKalb County, outside Atlanta city limits, but wanted to collect signatures within the city as part of a local referendum petition targeting a specific municipal ordinance.
The ordinance at the center of the dispute authorized the lease of city-owned land in DeKalb County to the Atlanta Police Federation for construction of a new police training facility. The proposed referendum sought to repeal this authorization, but the petitioners encountered a legal obstacle in the form of Section 66-37(b) of the City of Atlanta Municipal Code.
This municipal provision requires that signature gatherers for local referendum petitions be residents of the city. The residency requirement effectively prevented the four women from participating in the signature collection process, despite their interest in the referendum's outcome and their desire to engage in what they argued was constitutionally protected speech.
Facing this barrier, the plaintiffs filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the signature gatherer residency requirement. They argued that the municipal restriction violated their First Amendment rights to free speech and petition the government. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
The legal challenge centered on fundamental questions about the scope of First Amendment protections in the context of local political participation. The plaintiffs contended that their right to engage in political speech and petition activities should not be limited by municipal boundaries, particularly when the subject matter of the petition directly affects their community.
The district court sided with the plaintiffs, granting their motion for a preliminary injunction. This ruling temporarily prevented the city from enforcing the residency requirement against the four women, allowing them to proceed with their signature gathering efforts while the case continued through the courts.
The City of Atlanta appealed the district court's decision to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, setting up the constitutional showdown that resulted in this week's ruling. The appeal required the three-judge panel, consisting of Circuit Judges Newsom, Branch, and Luck, to examine the balance between municipal authority to regulate local political processes and individual constitutional rights.
The case raises broader questions about the extent to which local governments can restrict political participation based on residency requirements. While municipalities have traditionally maintained authority to regulate various aspects of local governance and political processes, such restrictions must still comply with constitutional protections for free speech and petition rights.
The Atlanta Police Federation training facility that prompted the referendum petition has been a source of community controversy. The proposed facility would be built on city-owned land located in DeKalb County, creating an unusual situation where Atlanta city policy would directly impact residents of a neighboring jurisdiction who have no direct voice in Atlanta's political processes.
This geographic complexity likely contributed to the plaintiffs' motivation to challenge the residency requirement. As DeKalb County residents, they would be affected by the training facility's construction but would normally be excluded from Atlanta's political processes due to their non-resident status.
The Eleventh Circuit's ruling will have implications beyond this specific case, potentially affecting how other municipalities in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia structure their petition gathering requirements. The decision will serve as precedent for future challenges to residency-based restrictions on political participation.
The case also highlights the ongoing tension between local democratic control and broader constitutional principles. While cities have legitimate interests in ensuring that local political processes are controlled by their residents, the First Amendment provides robust protections for political speech and petition activities that may limit municipal authority.
The ruling addresses fundamental questions about political participation in an era where municipal policies increasingly affect residents of neighboring jurisdictions. Urban areas often extend their influence beyond formal city limits through various policies and projects, creating situations where non-residents have legitimate interests in municipal decision-making processes.
Court documents indicate that Judge Branch authored the opinion for the three-judge panel. The case originated from docket number 1:23-cv-02999-MHC in the Northern District of Georgia before reaching the appellate level as case number 23-12469.