Although widely recognized in the U.S. for its peaches and southern charm, Georgia has a different reputation internationally: its location and attributes have caused it to quickly become a magnet for foreign direct investment and a hub for European companies. With economic and political tensions currently rising between the U.S. and E.U., subnational diplomacy, which is defined as international engagement on a local or regional level, and economic cooperation between American and European partners, are more important than ever to ensure the long-term success of the transatlantic relationship. It’s this type of European involvement in the state of Georgia that is reshaping the economy, increasing innovation, and elevating the state’s globalization.

Georgia’s strategic location makes it an ideal spot for overseas companies’ investment. Atlanta is home to multiple headquarters of Fortune 500 companies, as well as the Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport, one of the world’s busiest airports, providing easy access to almost 80% of America’s largest metro cities within a 2-hour flight. As a result, more than 70 countries have official consular and trade representatives in the state, who are responsible for representing their respective national interests to the entire Southeast. Additionally, Georgia’s coastal location is an attractive prospect for many European countries, as it houses two ports. The Port of Savannah is both the largest container terminal in America and the fastest-growing port in the country, functioning as a vital hub for international trade and logistics. The Port of Brunswick is the country’s number one port for new auto imports. European companies in key industries such as supply chain, logistics, and technology, including Vanderlande Industries, Stellantis/Groupe PSA and Hapag-Lloyd, have all chosen Georgia as their U.S. headquarters for these reasons.

Over the past few decades, these companies, particularly German ones, have significantly contributed to Georgia’s economy. Germany is Georgia’s top European trading partner, and has consistently been in the top five international trading partners of the state. For example, Porsche Cars North America (PCNA), a German car brand, established its U.S. headquarters in Atlanta in 1998. More recently, it opened its renowned Porsche Experience Center Atlanta in 2015, a facility that offers multiple drive, track, and simulator experiences. PCNA invested an initial $150 million and expanded their facilities in 2023, contributing an additional $50 million. In 2018, Mercedes-Benz USA, the North American subsidiary of German automotive company Mercedes-Benz, opened its corporate headquarters in Sandy Springs, a suburb a few miles out of Atlanta. The company invested upwards of $74 million and built a facility that could employ up to 1,000 people. Motor vehicles have consistently ranked in the top five traded products between Georgia and international partners, further facilitated by the Port of Brunswick. Other German companies, such as ThyssenKrupp and Siemens, have opened regional or North American headquarters in Georgia. 

To further strengthen these international partnerships with Germany and Poland, Georgia governor Brian Kemp announced an overseas economic development trip, which took place in January 2025. Governor Kemp and representatives from the Georgia Department of Economic Development met with German companies already operating in Georgia, as well as companies with expansion plans, in order to reinforce relationships while participating in diplomacy and partnerships. In Poland, Georgia officials met with Polish business leaders to explore opportunities in the defense industry. Coupled with the news that a Czech aerospace and defense company established North American headquarters in Roswell in February 2025, and Lockheed Martin’s Marietta site, this initiative reflects an effort to support the defense industry in the state. Strong economic relations with Europe aid job creation and stimulate the local economy, simultaneously allowing the state to attract more foreign companies looking to expand to the U.S. In addition, creating enduring relationships with eastern and central Europe allows Georgia access to new emerging markets and stay at the forefront of innovation in science, technology and defense.

The first months of 2025 have presented a number of particularly difficult challenges for the U.S.-E.U. partnership. Strengthening and reinforcing economic partnerships with foreign countries at the local level not only supports the country’s diplomatic ties, but acts as a stabilizing force for transatlantic relationships in an economically and politically uncertain time. While subnational economic relationships cannot replace formal diplomacy, they serve as an opportunity for states to expand their reach and forge cross-cultural partnerships. International investments, like the German and Polish examples discussed above, create thousands of jobs in Georgia each year and bring in millions of dollars in funding. This positions the state to leverage its strategic advantages in diplomacy, geography, and infrastructure, something that has become more important than ever in the modern global landscape.

In late August 2023, Hurricane Idalia ravaged Southeast Georgia, downing not only trees and powerlines but also numerous farms, severely impairing Georgia’s agriculture. The impacts can still be seen today.

Georgia is the nation’s most robust producer of pecans and has been leading the nation consistently each year with the highest utilized production of pecans in recent times. Clearly, pecans are a large part of Georgia’s economic agricultural system. Each year, the pecan industry comprises around two billion dollars of Georgia’s economy and generates approximately 13,000 jobs, making it a substantial portion of the state’s economy.

However, pecans do not grow instantaneously. Pecan trees require 4 to 10 years to mature, with some not producing nuts until they are around a decade old. Hurricanes pose a huge economic threat to the almost 3,000 pecan farmers located in Georgia, as even downed limbs can deeply hinder a tree’s productive capacity for years. In these orchards, farmers plant trees via the process of grafting. During the process of grafting, farmers take established roots that thrive in Georgia’s rich soil and attach them to the tree shoots so that as they grow, they combine and transform into a more productive, resistant plant. These trees are then planted 40 to 70 feet from one another, which means they require a considerable amount of space to grow and produce pecans.

Hurricanes Idalia and Helene have caused severe damage to Georgia’s economy because of pecan tree destruction. Hurricane Idalia made landfall as a Category 3 Hurricane, eventually becoming a Category 2 hurricane as it crossed the Florida-Georgia Line. Idalia sustained winds of 50 to 70 miles per hour. These speeds are substantial enough to topple trees, wrench immature pecans from their branches, and cause tree limbs to fall. Elevated wind speeds are especially troubling for pecan trees, which can only withstand 60 mile an hour winds before causing major structural damage and an increased risk of uprooted trees. Orchards in Idalia’s path in Southeast Georgia experienced around 50 percent loss of trees and substantial losses for that year’s pecan crops.

Hurricane Helene posed a similar threat for pecan farmers. In late September of 2025, Hurricane Helene swept across Georgia, not only killing hundreds of people, but also severely damaging Georgia’s agriculture, most notably the pecan industry. Helene emerged from the Atlantic Ocean as a Category 4 hurricane, eventually losing steam and crossing the Florida-Georgia line as a Category 2 hurricane. With wind speeds reaching up to 137 miles per hour, Helene downed pecan trees in its path, causing an estimated $5.5 billion in agricultural damages, with economic losses totaling around $100 billion. In comparison, Hurricane Helene was stronger than Hurricane Idalia, causing an estimated 40 percent loss of trees from eight to 29 years old and an estimated 70 percent loss of older trees that were already proven to be reliable producers.

The resulting damages from these hurricanes have caused major economic distress for Georgia as the orchards continue to recover. Hurricane Helene, in particular, caused losses of $138 million in the pecan industry alone. Due to the lengthy maturation period, the impacts of these natural disasters are far-reaching. Pecans, while a sizable agricultural resource for the state of Georgia, are not an especially resilient crop. Large catastrophic events will take longer for the pecan industry to recover as the trees not only need to be replanted but also tended to and harvested. Meanwhile, the pecan harvesters have little-to-no revenue source until pecan production increases again.

In addition to plant damages, tariffs on U.S. exports to China have troubled pecan growers, as they face greater competition from others internationally who offer lower prices. 

China has imposed additional tariffs in direct response to the blanket tariffs the U.S. recently imposed on Chinese imports. Under the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement, the U.S. has currently suspended its tariffs covering pecans, but farmers are unsure about the impacts of future tariffs. Because Georgia has exported around 50-70% of its pecans to China for the last decade, the U.S. and China trade war will greatly harm farmers as the cost of pecans in China increases. The quantity exported to China will subsequently decrease and stifle Georgia’s economy. In addition, the cost of pecan production continuously increases as farmers combat scab, a disease affecting plants that can lead to deformed fruit and leaf drop. Scab requires numerous fungicide sprays due to increased resistance. Combating the disease raises the costs of production even higher—at times an upwards of 60 percent. These rising costs to pecan production, coupled with higher crop prices abroad due to tariffs, will reduce the profit margins of pecan farmers and make it even more challenging in the future to survive catastrophes such as hurricanes as they await a new crop of pecans.

Amidst higher costs, lower prices abroad, and lower margins, Georgian pecan farmers, from small family farms to large growers, are concerned with the future of their industry. Pecan farmers can still manage to plant, grow, and sell pecans due to government aid following natural disasters, but it is imperative that Georgian communities also take action to support such a vital industry. For one, farmers can consider seeking other sources of revenue as they recover, such as selling pecan wood. Some may even consider agritourism as a way of increasing community awareness while simultaneously boosting funds. In addition, supporting local growers through farmers markets and buying locally can help to increase pecan farmer’s profits, and one can even join community organizations whose goal is to inform the public of farmer’s needs. Lastly, when local and national elections arise, citizens should always remember to look into policies that advocate for the wellbeing of farmers. Farmers are the backbone of America, and their resilience continues to sustain society. Naturally, society needs to reciprocate this strength and pour back into the industry which allows it to thrive.

What Are Nonprofits?

Nonprofits play an important role in every city, often working behind the scenes to support community welfare. In fact, nonprofits tend to do a lot more behind the scenes than we realize. So what are they? Nonprofits are organizations that do not generate or distribute profits to shareholders or individuals. They serve the public good in various ways and include charitable organizations, religious organizations, homeowners associations, and labor unions among many others. The most impactful types of nonprofits are public charities, also known as charitable nonprofits. These are nonprofits that promote social welfare, private foundations, and religious organizations. 

In Georgia, there are approximately four nonprofits for every thousand people. Though nonprofits tend to be concentrated in larger cities, where more people live, many focus on improving conditions in rural areas in the state. Overall, 1.3 million charitable nonprofits serve their communities across the United States. In Athens alone, 1,390 nonprofits generate over two billion dollars in revenue each year. Some of the most influential nonprofits in Athens include Project Safe Inc, Athens-Oconee CASA, the Athens Area Humane Society, Books for Keeps, and the Jeannette Rankin Women’s Scholarship Fund. Additionally, Athens has a community foundation dedicated to raising and managing funds for local charities and foundations.

Community foundations have a vital role in managing nonprofit donations in cities with a high number of charitable organizations. A community foundation in Athens was established in 2008, and in less than 20 years, the Athens Area Community Foundation has grown to oversee 293 funds and manage $32 million in grants. The foundation does this by connecting donors with nonprofits and working with advisors to create donation plans. Furthermore, The Foundation connects donors with causes that align with their philanthropic goals. They help donors who wish to contribute broadly, support a specific cause, or direct their funds to a designated foundation. 

Why Are Nonprofits Needed?

Nonprofits bridge  the gap between what the government provides and what citizens can provide for themselves. In addition to services like providing food or donating books, nonprofits employ 12.8 million people nationwide and significantly impact the economy. More importantly, These nonprofits support human rights and health. One way they do this is through advocacy as an intermediary between individuals with fewer resources and the government sector. Nonprofits are essential to addressing community-specific needs that the broad federal government cannot identify. This includes overarching goals like human rights and welfare which are best addressed through localized, community-driven efforts that understand the unique challenges and cultural contexts of the people they serve. 

A major example of the influence of nonprofits is in the healthcare sector. Over half of the hospitals in the U.S. are nonprofit. Research from the National Institute of Health indicates that communities with strong nonprofit networks experience better community health including lower illness rates and higher infant health and mental health levels. Athens is no exception. In Athens, Piedmont Athens Regional Medical Center is nearly entirely funded by community grants. Over 2023, the hospital had 21,900 in-patient admissions and 82,046 out-patient ER visits. This means in 2023, the hospital helped patients over 100,000 times – making Piedmont hospital a crucial resource for people in the Athens area. Public hospitals are important examples of how public-serving nonprofits play a major role in nearly every American’s life.

What can we do better?

Despite their significance, support for nonprofits has been decreasing. In 1980, 85% of Americans donated to charitable causes, but that number has since fallen to 50%. Additionally, only 33% of Americans believe that nonprofits contribute to society. While many people favor the idea of giving to charitable nonprofits, fewer are actively donating. A major factor in this decline is a lack of awareness: one study reported that 62.6% of people had little to no knowledge of nonprofits while only 1.5% considered themselves experts. Furthermore, although nearly 10% of Americans work for nonprofits, only about 5% of Americans believe that nonprofits have benefitted themselves or someone in their family directly. Because many people don’t understand the extent to which nonprofits benefit society and themselves, they are often reluctant to donate. This hurts both the economy and nonprofits’ ability to respond to disasters, provide resources, and promote healthcare. 

Addressing this issue starts with education and engagement. In Athens, college students can volunteer, spread awareness, and support local nonprofits. Additionally, college students everywhere can look into supporting their local community foundations. Support from university students in Athens will bring stronger statewide and national support for the Athens Area Community Foundation. This can be done through social media outreach, University-led initiatives, and collaboration with organizations on the UGA’s campus. By increasing community involvement, Athens residents, whether temporary or lifelong, can help grow the nonprofit sector, ensuring that these organizations can continue to serve those in need.

Legal gaps and their impact

 “A lot of people feel shut out, like no one wants to help them, like no one cares about them,” said Tara Vogel, an attorney with experience in the Georgia Legal Services program, where she works with individuals who are underrepresented in the legal system. In Georgia, this sense of isolation is reflected in the numbers as well: 65% of the state’s population lives in the 154 counties outside metro Atlanta, yet only 30% of Georgia’s lawyers serve them, according to the American Bar Association. Additionally, 25% of the state’s 159 counties have five or fewer lawyers, leaving thousands of Georgians in each county unrepresented. The lack of attorneys in these counties serves as a significant barrier to legal representation for rural Georgians, who are often lower income than their counterparts in the Atlanta area. The shortage of lawyers affects their ability to access legal help for crucial civil matters such as divorce, eviction, and debt. 

Under the ruling of the Gideon v. Wainwright (1973) case, defendants have a constitutional right to counsel in criminal cases, upheld by the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Gideon). However, this right does not apply to civil cases, leaving civil defendants without public defenders. Although the liberty of the defendant is not at stake, there are still life- altering issues at risk such as custody of children, the defendant’s businesses, homes, and financial livelihoods. 

When facing eviction, only 4% of tenants are represented by a lawyer, compared to 83% of landlords, highlighting the stark contrast between those who can afford legal representation and those left to navigate the system alone. Individuals who cannot find representation in civil cases often write their own pleadings without any legal background or experience with the justice system, reflected in the statistic that an estimated 3 out of 5 people in civil cases go to court without a lawyer.  A lack of civil representation often leads individuals to miss court appearances, worsening their situation and straining the court system, with tenants unaware of federal eviction programs being particularly vulnerable to eviction. On a more personal level, the stress of navigating the legal system falls on the civil defendant when they cannot find access to representation, only adding to the chaos of one of the most presumably stressful experiences of their lives, with custody, estate, or financial issues at stake. 

Why rural Georgia?

Legal gaps are most prominent in rural communities in Georgia due to a variety of factors, impacting the draw of attorneys to the region. Urban migration towards Atlanta has caused attorneys to flood to the city, as the more densely populated region holds increased potential for cases. As John Gee Edwards articulates in a Georgia State piece, “there is not enough business to sustain a large number of attorneys” in rural Georgia counties. Underlying this economic draw is the reality of high student loan debt that many recent law school graduates face, as the average law school graduate leaves with $130,000 in student loan debt. This financial burden forces many graduates to pursue higher-paying jobs in urban centers, deepening the disparity in legal representation between cities and rural communities.

Another barrier for representation in rural communities is the lack of technology in the regions, limiting the access to information or communication with potential attorneys outside of the areas. Rural areas of Georgia face a severe broadband issue, meaning they lack access to high speed internet and connectivity that is necessary to communicate virtually. In low income areas of rural Georgia, a shortage of funding for technological advancement contributes further to the lack of connectivity to resources. Individuals do not have the access to information about the courts that they need to compensate for the lack of representation they face, and resources such as library services are often understaffed.

Additionally, residents of rural Georgia are disproportionately low income, making it financially difficult for them to travel to other areas to find representation, and afford the representation that they can locate. All of these factors lead to a shortage of lawyers and access to legal information in rural Georgia counties, while metro Atlanta counties have an attorney on seemingly every street corner. 

Current solutions

Despite the complexity and severity of the legal gaps in rural Georgia, there are current efforts that are attempting to address the legal access issues in rural counties. The Supreme Court of Georgia formed a regulatory committee to address access to justice in rural areas, with Chief Justice Boggs urging new lawyers to “pay it forward” through pro bono work. Local resources, such as the “Filing without an attorney” page of the Middle District of Georgia website, offer free guidance to defendants, particularly in counties impacted by limited access to legal representation.

Pro bono organizations in Georgia have been working to combat the legal gaps by offering pro bono and free legal services to qualifying defendants, including those involved in civil cases. The Georgia Legal Services Program specifically provides free civil legal help to Georgians outside of the metro Atlanta area, addressing the legal gaps in rural counties. Although the work of these pro bono organizations has touched a lot of individuals, their resources are limited and they face substantial funding issues that need to be addressed in order to expand their impact.

North Dakota’s 2013 Rural Attorney Recruitment Program, which incentivized recent law graduates to settle in rural areas through financial rewards, has been successful and could serve as a potential model for a similar program in Georgia. A similar bill was proposed in Georgia in 2015 to offer debt forgiveness on school loans for recent law school grads who practiced in local areas, but the bill never made it to the floor of the General Assembly.

Bridging the gap

While solutions such as pro bono legal organizations and rural placement programs address a portion of the legal gap issue, a multi faceted solution is required to truly bring greater access to justice to rural Georgia. One possible program that could aim to address the access to justice would be the introduction of  “Legal Paraprofessionals” into the state court system, allowing non lawyers to practice law with the supervision of a registered attorney. Alternatively, increased funding to local resources such as online legal databases, videos, or forums can provide higher quality information to defendants representing themselves in civil trials.  

Generative AI has the capability to help defendants without legal experience write their own pleadings in an efficient manner, presenting the issues in a way that aligns with the process of the court system. Generative AI has the promise of being an affordable alternative to traditional legal consultation from an attorney, and more concise pleadings from defendants would surely alleviate some of the efficiency issues at the civil court level. 

A linear solution is not sufficient to address the large legal gaps in rural Georgia, and it will likely require a combination of these approaches to achieve sustained change. Although the barriers to access are steep and it is a complex issue, advancements in technology and further public awareness of legal access issues demonstrate some promise in working to bridge the legal gap. 

Young people have consistently voted at lower turnouts. For instance, in the 2016 election, only 48% of college students voted at the polls. This rate was notably lower than the national average of 61%

However, historically, college students have been at the forefront of many important political and social movements. The famous lunch counter sit-ins to protest against racial segregation that spread across the U.S. in the 1960s began with four young college students in North Carolina. Across the world after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, college students in Czechoslovakia helped lead massive protests that led to the end of the state’s communist government and the election of a new president. Furthermore, during the 1960s, U.S. college students made up a large portion of protestors against the Vietnam War, and demonstrations occurred on campuses throughout the entire nation.

Gen Z, born in the late 1990s and early 2000s, is no exception to the trend of college students engaging in political and social activism. Many in this generation seem more passionate than ever regarding climate change, economic inequality, political division, and more. In fact, 70% of Gen Z is involved in some sort of political or social cause, and they are the age group most likely to boycott products, companies, countries, and states. 

As the younger generation increasingly distrusts the formal political system, which may help to explain their low voting turnout, they have turned towards alternative methods of engaging in the democratic process like protests, boycotts, and petitions. Those methods are nothing new–but many of these means of engaging in social justice now heavily involve and rely upon social media. Platforms like Twitter, TikTok, and Instagram are commonly used to organize various protests, and these digital platforms are used to generate momentum for worldwide protests, such as the Black Lives Matter movement. 

As a BBC article about Gen Z and social activism explains, “And although they are far from the first generation who’ve spoken up about injustice… technology has meant Gen Z’s activism looks different than the movements of the past – which means their influence may be, too.” Gen Z is constantly exposed to social crises and issues through social media sites, which has instilled a sense of anxiety and urgency in the generation. The same article states that because “young people can’t turn away from the discourse …it’s no wonder that many digital native Gen Zers are spurred to act on their societal grievances.” This desire to make an impact is seen on UGA’s campus through various political student organizations, such as the Young Democrats of UGA and the College Republicans at UGA.

Interviews with the heads of both student organizations showcased their perspectives on the best ways to engage in political activism. Yasmine Sabere, the President of Young Democrats of UGA, described how her organization hosts a multitude of speakers, engages in community service, educates members about Athens issues, guides students on voter registration, and posts statements on major political issues, such as the overturning of Roe v. Wade. On a personal level, Sabere protested for Palestine in Athens and even spoke at a demonstration. Sabere believes that these on-campus protests created an affirming space on campus for Muslim, Arab, and Palestinian students who did not feel that the UGA administration was acknowledging their grief. Sabere believes that the negative and repressive responses to pro-Palestine protests, especially by the older generation, are signs that the activism is indeed sparking a change. She believes that the “suppression around our voices” affirms that the protests are making a difference, even if the impact is not immediate.

 Luke Winkler, the Chairman of College Republicans at UGA, also shared some insight on the activism of this student organization. He explained that the group mainly focuses on bringing in guest speakers, such as politicians Mike Collins and Andrew Clyde. Winkler believes that students who attend these events become more educated on political issues and have the opportunity to engage in civil discourse. Regarding protests on college campuses, he stated, “I personally don’t see…how effective [protesting] is,” although he emphasized that everyone has a right to do so. 

In discussing the use of social media with political activism, Winkler and Sabere had differing views. Winkler stated that “it can be helpful…but people rarely engage in civil discourse and good conversation on social media” while Sabere believes that “social media is an incredible tool for social activism.” However, she acknowledged how performative activism can arise “when people don’t know a lot about the cause and are reposting something for their own personal benefit.”

One second-year student at UGA, Zeid Amer, is very passionate about social activism on social media. Amer continuously advocates for Palestine on Instagram and hopes that he may inspire others to do the same. However, he also acknowledges the potential problem of performative activism, explaining that people “must make sure that Palestine is not forgotten in a world where social issues are trends and forgotten the very next day.” 

College students, on both sides of the political spectrum, are continuing the political activism work that past generations have begun. Both Winkler and Sabere agree that UGA has many opportunities to become involved in political and social activism, and that simply seeking out opportunities and organizations is an excellent way to begin.

Photo Credit: https://lavocedinewyork.com/en/lifestyles/2024/04/15/younger-generations-speak-out-on-climate-change-action-now/

The issue of felony disenfranchisement stands as a barrier between the realization of all fundamental rights and the principles of justice, raising questions about representation and the path to social reintegration. Studies indicate that three out of every four Americans who cannot vote due to a felony conviction, reside within our communities while completing felony probation or parole. This issue can be felt even in the familiar streets of downtown Athens, where the heartbeat of the city oscillates. Among the various activities and gatherings and throngs of people, are those who were formerly incarcerated. There are those who, despite their past mistakes, have become an integral part of the community. They volunteer, advocate for policy reform and contribute to the betterment of the community. Despite their efforts, there is a glaring disparity. Because of a history of incarceration, they are denied the fundamental right to vote, depriving them of any way to enact changes in the laws and policies that directly impact them. 

The consequences of disenfranchisement extend beyond the individual level. Research indicates that it contributes to the perpetuation of systemic inequalities within communities, particularly those already marginalized. A study conducted by the Sentencing Project reveals that Georgia’s disenfranchisement rate of 3.1% exceeds the national average of 2.0%, with  5.2% of the state’s Black voting-age population being denied the right to vote. 

In Georgia, as in many other states, individuals convicted of felonies lose their right to vote even after completing their sentences. The impact is staggering, with African American men disproportionately affected by these laws. According to the Department of Justice, the percentage of Black men likely to go to prison during their lifetime is 28.5% compared to that of white men, who have a likelihood percentage of 4.4%.  African American men are six times more likely than white men to be incarcerated during their lifetimes. This disparity in incarceration rights draws attention to the racial inequities embedded within the criminal justice system. It reflects a history of systemic biases, from policing practices to sentencing outcomes, disproportionately affecting communities of color. These inequities not only increase cycles of marginalization but also challenge the principles of fairness and equality our democratic society claims to be built on. 

In addition to the challenges faced by formerly incarcerated individuals in Georgia, the issue is exacerbated by the involvement of private prisons in the state. Private prisons, operated by corporations for profit, have a vested interest in maintaining high incarceration rates to ensure financial viability. Consequently, they often lobby for harsher sentencing laws and contribute to the continuation of policies that disenfranchise individuals with felony convictions. Profit motives often take precedence over rehabilitation and reintegration efforts, and contribute to the overrepresentation of African American men in the criminal justice system.  

The journey of reintegration for individuals post-incarceration is filled with challenges, from securing employment to rebuilding relationships. As stated above, one often overlooked aspect is the restoration of civic rights. When individuals are unable to vote, they are effectively silenced in the democratic process. This absence of voice not only eliminates their sense of belonging but also hinders the collective representation of their communities. In places like Athens-Clarke County, where historical disenfranchisement and racial tensions persist, restoring voting rights to the previously incarcerated is crucial for promoting inclusivity.

Efforts to address felony disenfranchisement are gaining momentum across the country. Organizations like Common Cause advocate for the restoration of voting rights, highlighting  the importance of civic engagement in reducing recidivism and fostering community reintegration. Local and state organizations in Georgia, including the American Civil Liberties Union or ACLU of Georgia and the Georgia Coalition for the People’s Agenda, are actively engaged in legal battle and advocacy efforts to change laws that prolong this deprivation of fundamental rights.  The Georgia Justice Project is another organization that plays a crucial role in advocating for criminal justice reform and supporting individuals affected by the system. The Georgia Justice Project focuses on providing legal representation, support services, and advocacy for individuals impacted by the criminal justice system. Through these efforts, the project aims to address the root causes of mass incarceration, promote alternatives to incarceration and advocate for the restoration of voting rights. By working collaboratively with community members, policymakers, and others, these organizations strive to create a more just society where everyone has the opportunity to rebuild their lives and participate fully in civic life. 

Photo Credit: https://www.pexels.com/photo/a-person-with-a-wristband-casting-a-vote-5926256/

The participation of college students in the democratic process is imperative. Not only will the local representatives they elect affect their lives while attending college, but those same officials will likely influence the first stages of their adult life after higher education as well. Students attending colleges in-state are free to vote for candidates who most directly affect their campus communities, but out-of-state students do not always have this luxury. In the state of Georgia, out-of-state students have the option to either stay registered to vote in their home state or register to vote in Georgia using their public college ID. This provides these students a opportunity to receive proper democratic representation in the local and state governments. There are several obstacles, however, that out-of-state students in Georgia must overcome to achieve this representation. Out-of-state students who attend college in Georgia, including University of Georgia students, have a harder time achieving proper democratic representation than in-state students because of the issues they face with voter registration, such as inadequate civic education, confusing laws, and lack of motivation.

Most Georgia college students have a chance to vote for officials representing their campus communities but insufficient civic education leads to ignorance of this opportunity. Out-of-state students may not realize they are able to change where they are registered, which is a problem perpetuated by the University of Georgia’s civic engagement website page. On this page, it states that one can use an ID from a public Georgia university to vote, but it never explicitly mentions that this option works for out-of-state students who wish to change where they are registered. Buried amongst facts about valid Georgia driver licenses, it is easy for students to misunderstand this option as only being for in-state students. The only section of the page that refers to registering out-of-state takes the user to a separate, more confusing page of Democracy Works Elections Data. This page also does not provide any specific information on how to register, opting to only inform the reader of how the organization’s other website pages can help without any hyperlinks or directions. This lack of knowledge may be a factor in why few out-of-state students are registered in their campus state. In a study conducted by Tufts University, researchers found that 23% of out-of-state students are registered to vote in Georgia. With so few out-of-state students registered and no clear instruction on how to register in one’s campus state, out-of-state students in Georgia face the hindrance of learning they can change their registration location to begin with.

Beyond the University of Georgia, out-of-state students who attend private colleges in Georgia are not even allowed to register to vote in the state. According to the Secretary of State’s Georgia Voter Identification Requirements, only a student ID from a public Georgia college or university is valid due to a 2006 voter ID law. This issue not only denies out-of-state students at Georgia private colleges the right to democratic representation, but it specifically burdens out-of-state students of color. Seven out of 10 historical black colleges and universities in Georgia are private, meaning many Black out-of-state students are disenfranchised at the polls. Even out-of-state students at other private popular schools, such as Emory or Mercer University, face this problem. This oversight on valid voting IDs results in out-of-state students having to make the unfair decision to sacrifice their right to democratic representation in exchange for a higher education in Georgia. 

On a psychological level, out-of-state students tend to feel less of an incentive to register. The aforementioned Tufts University study found that out-of-state students are simply less motivated to vote. This could be for a number of reasons. Some students may not want to go through the work of registering again when they are already registered in their home state. Some may feel their vote is not needed in their campus state, especially if that state tends to be led by one political party. On the flip side, if their home state is a battleground state in elections, they may decide it is more important to stay registered there, even if it means giving up their elective power in their campus state. Georgia’s current political climate makes this situation more complex. Historically, Georgia has tended to lean Republican for both state and national elections. Out-of-state votes are more crucial than ever in influencing Georgia’s elections, but that puts out-of-state students in the tough position of deciding in which state they want their vote to matter. Out-of-state students spend around eight months out of the year living under their campus state’s government. Yet, many of those students’ electoral power to choose candidates that best represent their wants and values is deprived, either through deficient civic knowledge, tangible ID requirements or mental obstacles. With one of the most crucial election periods on the horizon, this must change. In the past, movements such as VoteRiders have sent knowledgeable activists to college campuses in Georgia to help students with registration. Out-of-state students especially should seek out these volunteers if they come to campus. The University of Georgia must also take on some responsibility and do a better job of making it clear to out-of-state students that they can register to vote in the state and provide resources to help them do so. If you are an in-state student who has registered before, offer to help an out-of-state peer with the process. They deserve democratic representation just as much as in-state students.

Photo Credit: https://www.pexels.com/photo/stickers-with-i-voted-inscription-and-flag-of-usa-1550339/

Gwinnett County is politically fascinating. The county is solidly suburban, with its county seat, Lawrenceville, approximately 28 miles northeast of Atlanta. It is also the second-most populous county in Georgia, with 957,062 residents, according to the 2020 Census. The county is also fast-growing, especially in the metro-Atlanta area, with its population increasing by 19 percent between 2010 and 2020.

Gwinnett is incredibly diverse, tied with Alameda County, California, for the seventh-most diverse county in the U.S. It is also the most diverse county in the state of Georgia, with a diversity index of 75.1 percent. Nevertheless, just two decades ago, Gwinnett was not nearly as diverse as it is today. In 2000, the county was mostly White, at 67 percent of the population. 13 percent of residents were Black, 11 percent Hispanic, and 7 percent Asian. Since then, the county has rapidly diversified, and today, the county is overwhelmingly majority-minority, with a bare White plurality. Thirty-two percent of residents are White, 31 percent Black, 22 percent Hispanic, and 14 percent Asian.

Between 1980 and 2012, the county voted for the Republican presidential candidate every year. In 2000, Republicans had a firm grip on county-level politics, voting for George W. Bush by a nearly 2-1 margin, not sending a single Democrat in any of the districts within its boundaries to the General Assembly, and not electing a single Democrat to county-wide office or the county commission.

However, in 2016, Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee, carried Gwinnett in an election-night stunner, even as she lost Georgia overall. Clinton was the first Democratic presidential candidate to carry the county since native-Georgian Jimmy Carter ran in 1976. The county has moved to solid Democratic turf, voting for Democrats up and down the ballot in 2018 and onward. Today’s political landscape is almost the opposite of 2000, with Democrats controlling all of the county-wide political offices, four of the five seats on the commission, and electing many more Democrats to the General Assembly than Republicans.

Aside from realignment, Gwinnett has also been the center of recent political controversies. In 2018, the U.S. House race for District 7, which at the time included most of the county, was the closest in the nation. After a recount, incumbent Republican Congressman Rob Woodall won by a meager 419 votes. The close election result added to political conflict in the county after thousands of absentee and provisional ballots were not initially counted, two-thirds of which were cast by minority voters. 

Gwinnett was also the center of a redistricting fight in 2020. In the decennial process, the Republican-led General Assembly redrew Gwinnett’s county commission districts, ignoring the commission’s proposed map. Instead, the state legislature created a district in the northern part of the county that is more Republican and where more white voters reside. Democrats criticized the state’s map, which was implemented, for packing voters of color into the three other commission districts. Republicans defended that the district represented more rural stretches of the county.

The following article is part of a series of articles analyzing Gwinnett’s political realignment that began in 2016. This article examines federal-level election returns in Gwinnett since 2000. Later installments of this series will address state and local races, partisan change, and the factors driving the county’s realignment.

Presidential Elections

Twenty-first-century presidential election results in Gwinnett show how much the county has changed politically. Between 2000 and 2020, the Democratic presidential candidates increased their vote percentage by 26 percentage points. The results also present three phases of realignment in Gwinnett: pre-Obama era Republican dominance, increasing competition during the Obama era but still a Republican lean, and post-Obama era Democratic ascendancy.

In the pre-Obama era elections, 2000 and 2004, the Democratic candidates Al Gore and John Kerry each received 34 percent of the vote. Nonetheless, support for the party surged by 11 percentage points from 2004 to 2008, when Barack Obama garnered 45 percent of the vote. Obama again secured 45 percent of the vote in the 2012 election. 

In 2016, in a surprise to observers statewide, Clinton flipped the county to the Democratic Party, taking 53 percent of the vote and building on Obama’s vote percentage by eight percentage points. In 2020, President Joe Biden converted Gwinnett into solid Democratic territory by expanding on Clinton’s victory by six percentage points to win a landslide 59 percent of the vote. Strong margins in the county undoubtedly contributed to Biden’s narrow victory in Georgia that year. 

Observing raw vote trends in Presidential elections in Gwinnett demonstrates key changes in voting in the county since 2000. Since 2004, the raw vote total for Republican candidates has remained nearly stagnant, averaging 158,500 votes. In his re-election campaign, former President Donald Trump only managed 6,000 more votes than when former President George W. Bush was in the same position in 2004.

Republican stagnation contrasts sharply with the Democratic raw vote total, which increased fourfold between 2000 and 2020. In 2000 and 2004, Gore and Kerry fell below the 100,000 vote threshold, at 61,000 and 82,000, respectively. 

As the two-party vote results demonstrated, Democratic support in Gwinnett surged in 2008. Compared to Kerry, Obama received 47,317 more votes, increasing the raw Democratic vote by a massive 58 percent. In 2012, Obama received only 3,000 more votes than he did in 2008. 

The raw Democratic vote substantially increased again in 2016, with Clinton obtaining 34,000 more votes than in Obama’s 2012 performance, for a 26 percent increase. Biden 

turned out 77,000 more voters than Clinton, a 46 percent increase from 2016. This occurred as turnout notably increased nationwide in 2020. 

U.S. Senate Elections

Twenty-first-century regular U.S. Senate election results in Gwinnett also reveal the extent to which the county has realigned. Between 2002 and 2022, the Democratic Senate candidates increased their vote percentage by 26 percent. Furthermore, starting in 2010, Democratic candidates have boosted the party’s share of the two-party vote from the previous election. 

In 2000, the Democratic candidate, incumbent Senator Zell Miller, received 51 percent of the two-party vote in the county, outperforming Gore by 17 percentage points in a sign of split-ticket voting during that election. However, support for the party plunged in 2002 when incumbent Senator Max Cleland ran for re-election and obtained 35 percent of the two-party vote. Likewise, in 2004, Denise Majette received 33 percent. Compared to 2000, split ticketing declined significantly as Majette only underperformed Kerry by one percentage point. Another Democratic candidate for the Senate did not receive a majority of the two-party vote again until Jon Ossoff ran in the 2020 regular Senate election. 

In 2008, Obama’s coattails followed candidate Jim Martin as he, like Majette, underperformed the presidential candidate by only one percentage point to receive 45 percent of the county’s vote. Martin improved upon Majette as Democratic support increased by 12 percentage points, out-doing the increase in Democratic presidential support between 2004 and 2008.

Starting in 2014 with Michelle Nunn, Democratic candidates, on average, increased the percentage of the Democratic vote in Gwinnett from the previous by approximately five percentage points. Nunn increased Michael Thurmond’s, the 2010 candidate, share of the two-party vote by nine percentage points. 

While Clinton carried Gwinnett with 53 percent of the two-party vote, her coattails did not wholly show through in a signal of down-ballot lag. Jim Barksdale, a relatively unknown businessman to Georgia voters and first-time candidate, ran against incumbent Senator Johnny Isakson, who was popular among Georgia voters. Barksdale achieved 48 percent of the county’s two-party vote, a five percentage point drop off compared to Clinton and demonstration of the 2016 election as a dealignment election for the county rather than a complete realignment.

Nonetheless, in 2020, Jon Ossoff became the first Democratic candidate since Miller to win the county in a Senate contest, romping his competitor, incumbent David Perdue, with 58 percent of the two-party vote. Ossoff bettered Barksdale’s percentage by a whopping ten percentage points. In 2022, incumbent Senator Raphael Warnock slightly surpassed Ossoff, winning 60 percent of the two-party vote to become the first Democratic candidate running for any position to cross the 60 percent line in Gwinnett in the twenty-first century.

Congressional Elections

Of all federal races occurring in Gwinnett, Democrats have faced the most difficulty in congressional elections, mainly due to the party not fielding candidates in every district in the county in the years 2000, 2002, 2004, 2008, 2012, 2014, and 2016. Nonetheless, the Democratic Party has demonstrated the most improvement in congressional elections of any other type of contest. Between 2000 and 2022, the Democratic party massively increased its two-party vote percentage by 43 percentage points. 

Congressional elections in the county validate the Democratic Party’s struggle to be competitive in the county before 2008, with the party bottoming out at 14 percent of the two-party vote in 2000 because it did not run a candidate in the District 11, which included more of the county’s population than the two other districts in the county: the Districts 4 and 6. 

In 2002, the party increased its proportion of the two-party vote by 11 percentage points for 25 percent. Continuing its struggles, the party then regressed in 2004 to 15 percent of the vote but enormously improved to 32 percent in 2006.

Furthermore, the Democratic Party’s percentage of the two-party vote in the county’s congressional elections did not cross the 40-percent line until 2008, when Obama’s coattails carried down the ballot, with U.S. House candidates netting 44 percent of the two-party vote. After this election, Democratic candidates in the county averaged 43 percent of the vote between 2010 and 2016, with their best performance in 2014 when they pulled 48 percent of the two-party vote because the Republican Party did not have a standing candidate in the District 4. 

In 2016, again exemplifying split-ticket voting with votes for Clinton at the top of the ticket and Republicans down-ballot, Democratic candidates collectively captured 45 percent of the two-party vote in U.S. House races. However, no candidate stood for the party in District 10, including the smallest electorate of Gwinnett residents. 

In 2018, the party achieved a majority of the two-party vote in congressional contests in Gwinnett for the first time in the twenty-first century, with 56 percent of the vote and an 11 percentage point increase from 2016. Democrats reached this feat by winning 55 percent of the vote in District 7, which included most of the county’s population. In that race, first-time candidate Carolyn Bourdeaux ran vigorously against Republican incumbent Rob Woodall. After a recount, Bourdeaux came just 419 votes short of flipping the district, which covered a more Republican area in Forsyth County as well. 

In 2020, the party attained its apex of the two-party vote in congressional elections in the county with 58 percent of the vote and Biden’s coattails almost entirely flowing down-ballot. That election, Bourdeaux, running for the second time, beat a MAGA conservative, Rich McCormick, outright in District 7. She landed 58 percent of the vote in the Gwinnett portion of the district. The party also received 57 percent of the two-party vote in the 2022 midterms, with the Democratic Representative Lucy McBath winning District 7 after representing the Sixth District, including the north Atlanta suburbs, for four years.

Conclusion

Although Gwinnett was Republican-leaning territory through 2014, the county has solidly realigned to the Democratic Party. After the 2000 U.S. Special Senate election that Zell Miller ran in, the county did not vote for another Democrat until Hillary Clinton’s bid for the presidency in 2016. However, that cycle was more of a dealignment election for the county it voted for Republicans in down-ballot races. In 2018, the county completely realigned to the Democratic Party, giving Democratic candidates a substantial majority vote to U.S. House candidate Carolyn Bourdeaux. The county became even more Democratic in 2020, with Joe Biden leading the way, and the county again chose Democrats in the 2022 midterm elections.

Image by Athens Politics Nerd

Establishing the SPLOST

The Georgia State Legislature enacted the County Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax in 1985. This allowed for local governments to implement an optional 1% sales tax on all goods that are subject to the state sales tax. Essentially, for every dollar spent on an item subject to the tax, one penny goes toward SPLOST. Revenue generated by this small tax goes toward public works projects and infrastructure improvements that are not funded by property taxes. SPLOST funds are funneled into cultural, recreational, and historical capital outlay projects, as well as fire and police stations and vehicles. 

Implementing the SPLOST and projects first begins with the call for a SPLOST referendum by the county election superintendent. Following this, all of the municipalities within the county must meet and discuss the possible projects. Once the list of proposed projects has been compiled by the board of commissioners, the board must adopt a resolution that calls for the implementation of a tax. The resolution must include a list of all projects to be funded, listed with their estimated cost, and the time period that the tax will be implemented. Finally, once this resolution is adopted, the county voters must approve the resolution calling for the tax through a simple majority referendum. 

What is taxed?

Everything that is subject to the state sales tax is included in the SPLOST.  However, this sales tax also applies to food, non-alcoholic beverages, and motor fuels, which are not subject to the state sales tax.

Local Benefits

A 1% sales tax is considered a simple and fair solution, benefiting local communities without harming taxpayers. Essentially, SPLOST relieves pressure from local residents and property owners in Athens. Athens-Clarke County also exhibits a high volume of visitors whose purchases are subject to the sales tax, providing further relief for local taxpayers. 

SPLOST Projects

Earlier SPLOST projects are now an essential part of Athens-Clarke County. Thanks to SPLOST funding, many Parks and recreational facilities have been renovated to ensure Athens recreational infrastructure is sound. Walker Park, a 113-acre park with walking and biking trails, sports fields, a playground, and picnic shelters, was financed by the SPLOST and completed in 2013. Public infrastructure projects such as The Athens Courthouse parking deck have been financed by SPLOST, along with improvements to the Athens Regional Library and storm drainage systems. SPLOST also finances improvements to roads and bridges, including the construction of Epps Bridge Parkway, which connects Athens to State Route 316. Public safety equipment and administrative facilities are also financed by this tax. 

The most recent SPLOST project list, approved in 2020, can be found here. The Classic Center Arena Project, which will create a new 5,000-seat assembly space for the public, is expected to generate $33 million in revenue per year, stimulating the Athens economy and providing new jobs. There are a total of 37 projects, including the Animal Shelter Improvements Project, the East Side Public Library Project, and the Airport Capital Improvements Project, all with varying budgets. The 2020 SPLOSt is also moving in the direction of sustainability, taking financial steps towards using 100% renewable energy.

Association County Commissioners of Georgia. 2016. “Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax: A Guide for County Officials.” ACCG. Accessed October 24, 2023. https://www.accg.org/library/legal/SPLOST%202016.pdf

Athens-Clarke County Unified Government. “SPLOST: Athens-Clarke County, GA – Official Website.” SPLOST | Athens-Clarke County, GA – Official Website, 2020. https://www.accgov.com/946/SPLOST.

Athens-Clarke County Unified Government. “Projects 1-15: Athens-Clarke County, GA – Official Website.” Projects 1-15 | Athens-Clarke County, GA – Official Website. Accessed October 25, 2023. https://www.accgov.com/2159/Projects-1-15#3.

Dowd, Chris. 2019. “SPLOST 2020 Passes.” Athens Politics Nerd. Accessed October 24, 2023. https://athenspoliticsnerd.com/splost-2020-passes/. 

Image from Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Leo Frank and his wife Lucille in the courtroom for his murder trial, Georgia, 1913.

In a notorious episode of Georgia’s legal history, Leo Frank, a Jewish factory manager, was convicted of the murder of a young girl named Mary Phagan in Georgia in 1913 through a legal process steeped in anti-semitism and error. Despite doubts about his guilt, he was sentenced to death; in 1915, while on death row, his sentence was commuted by Georgia Governor John M. Slaton to life imprisonment. Frank was murdered by a lynch mob later that year, a crime for which no one was ever prosecuted. 

In the modern day, the consensus of investigators and legal scholars alike is that Leo Frank was innocent of murder. In 1986, Frank was pardoned by the State of Georgia. The state cited its lack of action to protect him and grant due process but did not comment on his guilt or innocence. 

As such, a decades-long effort to see Frank declared innocent via posthumous exoneration remains ongoing. The effort, pushed largely by community leaders such as Rabbi Steven Lebow and former Governor Roy Barnes, has led to the establishment of a task force to reinvestigate the case and renewed public interest. The one thing it has not led to is an exoneration. Yet. 

The lack of precedent for the posthumous exoneration being sought for Frank has long been an impediment to the movement. The recent exoneration of the Groveland Four in Florida, who faced a strikingly similar legal process, could change that. Despite the rarity of posthumous exonerations in America, the recent exoneration of the Groveland Four in Florida paves the way for the long-awaited exoneration of Leo Frank in Georgia. The two cases jointly prove that posthumous exoneration is essential to reconciling past injustices and that it is incumbent upon states to pursue them if justified. 

Background

Posthumous exonerations, distinct from pardons in that they completely acquit guilt, are extremely rare in America. In fact, less than 1% of all exonerations are granted after death, and the National Registry of Exonerations records only four individuals who have been exonerated explicitly by name. 

According to the University of Michigan School of Law’s report on posthumous and historical exonerations, this can be attributed to the court’s dismissal of proceedings as moot following a defendant’s death. In other words, there’s no established procedure for reconsidering guilt after death. As a result, many historical cases have been surrounded by outrage in light of modern evidence proving innocence without any exonerating action being taken by the state. 

The rarity of posthumous exonerations in America highlights the need for a structure by which they can be pursued and past injustices can be remedied after death. The recent exoneration of the Groveland Four in Florida demonstrates a positive step in this direction, emphasizing the importance of addressing glaring injustice in historical cases and providing complete acquittal of guilt even after death.

The Groveland Four and Leo Frank

The Groveland Four case involved four young African American men—Samuel Shepherd, Walter Irvin, Charles Greenlee, and Ernest Thomas—who were wrongfully accused of raping a white woman in Groveland, Florida, in 1949. Their convictions were marred by racial bias, coerced confessions, and lack of due process. If this sounds similar to Georgia’s Frank case, that’s because it is. The cases mirror one another strongly, mainly in their fundamentally flawed legal processes. 

• Racial and Religious Bias: Leo Frank was Jewish, and the trial took place in a deeply anti-Semitic and racially charged environment in Georgia during the early twentieth century. The Groveland Four, black men with a white female accuser, faced a similarly highly prejudiced climate. 
• Coerced Testimonies: In both cases, witnesses were coerced or intimidated into giving false testimonies. In the Frank case, initial prime suspect Jim Conley was coached by the prosecution to give strikingly inconsistent testimony against Frank. In the Groveland Four case, defendants Samuel Shepherd and Walter Irvin were brutally beaten by law enforcement to secure coerced confessions. 
• Lack of Physical Evidence: No concrete physical evidence tied Frank to the murder of Mary Phagan nor the Groveland Four to the rape of their accuser, Norma Padgett. The cases were built completely on circumstantial evidence and coerced testimony, both marred by prejudice. 
• Inadequate Legal Representation: Leo Frank’s team faced threats to their safety and a judge who was openly biased against the defense. The Groveland Four were not provided with competent legal counsel during their initial trial.

Posthumous Exoneration

The Groveland Four were exonerated in November of 2021. Although there is no formal legal process for pursuing posthumous exonerations, the five key steps leading to the Groveland Four’s exoneration provide structure to the pursuit. 

1. Review: In 2018, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi ordered a review of the Groveland Four case. The case was referred to law enforcement and Prosecutor Bill Gladson’s office. 
2. Pardon: In 2019, Governor DeSantis pardoned the Groveland Four after his campaign promise to do so. 
3. New evidence: In 2021, the grandson of the Groveland Four prosecutor informed investigators that he had found letters indicating that his grandfather and the case’s judge knew that no rape had occurred. 
4. Request for Exoneration: Prosecutor Bill Gladson filed to get rid of Thomas’ and Shepherd’s indictments and vacate sentences and judgments imposed on Greenlee and Irvin. He cited the letters from the original prosecutor and judge, as well as evidence that a primary witness’s testimony and provided evidence was fabricated.
5. Exoneration: Lake County Circuit Court Judge Heidi Davis cleared the charges against the men and issued a ruling that effectively exonerated them of the crime. 

Given the similarities between the cases, activists and lawmakers in the state of Georgia could find a path to posthumously exonerating  Leo Frank by following a similar structure. Although the Groveland Four exoneration does not directly establish legal precedent from a different state, it does establish that a framework exists by which posthumous exoneration efforts can be successful. This achievement offers a beacon of hope after decades of effort.

More broadly, the Groveland Four and Leo Frank cases serve as a powerful testament to the fact that resolving past injustice demands an established process for pursuing posthumous exoneration in American court systems. These cases, marred by prejudice, coerced testimonies, a lack of physical evidence, and inadequate legal representation, illustrate the inherent flaws in legal proceedings that failed to uphold the court’s fundamental duty to justice.

The exoneration of the Groveland Four demonstrates that with a structured approach, courts can right historical wrongs and provide complete acquittal of guilt, even after death. As we move forward, states must recognize their responsibility to pursue posthumous exonerations when justified and create clear legal pathways to do so.  Only such action can ensure that no one is denied the opportunity to be absolved of crimes they did not commit, even if they can no longer speak for themselves.