AMENDED BY ACT 2026-579, EFFECTIVE JUNE 1, 2026. SEE ACT FOR REVISED LANGUAGE.
(a) Commencing at 12:00 noon on the first Tuesday after the election, the municipal governing body shall proceed to open the envelopes addressed to the governing body which have been delivered by the returning officers to the municipal clerk, canvass the returns, and ascertain and determine the number of votes received by each candidate and for and against each proposition submitted at the election. If it appears that any candidate or any proposition in the election has received a majority of the votes cast for that office or on that question, the municipal governing body shall declare the candidate elected to the office or the question carried, and a certificate of election shall be given to the individuals by the municipal governing body or a majority of them, which shall entitle the individuals so certified to the possession of their respective offices immediately upon the expiration of the terms of their predecessors as provided by law. If the certification results of provisional ballots cast at the election have been received from the board of registrars prior to the first Tuesday after the election, or if no provisional votes were cast in the election, the municipal governing body, at any special or regular meeting, may canvass the results before the first Tuesday after the election.
(b) If a single office is to be filled at the election and there is more than one candidate running, then the majority of the votes cast for the office in the election shall be ascertained by dividing the total votes cast for all candidates for the office by two, and any number of votes in excess of one half of the total votes cast for all candidates for the office shall be a majority within the meaning of subsection (a).
(c) If two or more offices constituting a group are to be filled and there are more candidates for election than there are offices, then the majority of the votes cast for the office in the election shall be ascertained by dividing the total vote cast for all candidates for the offices by the number of positions to be filled and then dividing the result by two. Any number of votes in excess of the number ascertained by the last division shall be the majority prescribed in subsection (a) as necessary for election. If in ascertaining the result in this way it appears that more candidates have obtained this majority than there are positions to be filled, then those having the highest vote, if beyond the majority just defined, shall be declared elected to fill the positions.
(d) If no candidate receives a majority of all the votes cast in the election for any one office or offices for the election to which there were more than two candidates, then the municipal governing body shall order a second or runoff election to be held on the fourth Tuesday following the regular election, at which election the two candidates having received the most and the second most votes, respectively, shall be candidates, and the individual receiving the highest number of votes for that office in the runoff election shall be declared elected.
(e) In the event one of the candidates for a particular office in the runoff election withdraws or dies, then there need not be a second or runoff election to fill the office. If there should be a tie vote cast at any runoff election, then in that event the tie shall be decided by the municipal governing body no later than 12:00 noon on the first Tuesday following the second or runoff election. A vote for a particular candidate by a majority of those members eligible to vote of the governing body shall be necessary to decide the election in his or her favor. If the municipal governing body fails to break the tie, the elected candidate shall be decided by lot by the judge of probate of the county where the city or town hall is located no later than 5:00 p.m. on the first Tuesday following the second or runoff election in the presence of the candidates and other electors who choose to be present.
(f) Any judge of probate who openly participated in the promotion of candidates in the election that resulted in a tie may not decide the outcome of the election and shall be disqualified to do so. The presiding circuit court judge in the county where the city or town hall is located shall replace the disqualified judge of probate and shall conduct the duties required herein.
(g) Within 10 days of canvassing the results, the municipal clerk shall file a copy of each certificate of election with all of the following:
(1) The office of the judge of probate of the county in which the city or town hall is situated. The judge of probate shall file the certificate in the same manner that he or she files the declaration of the result of elections to county offices.
(2) The Secretary of State.
(3) The Alabama League of Municipalities.
(Acts 1961, No. 663, p. 827, §35; Acts 1980, No. 80-94, p. 140, §8; Acts 1982, No. 82-458, p. 711, §10; Act 2006-281, p. 496, §1; Act 2006-354, p. 937, §2; Act 2010-687, p. 1660, §1; Act 2015-216, p. 638, §1; Act 2021-157, §1; Act 2021-164, §1; Act 2022-337, §1.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
11
cases, 1989–2018 · leading case:
Ex Parte Krages, 689 So. 2d 799 (Ala. 1997).
Ex Parte Krages, 689 So. 2d 799 (Ala. 1997).
· cites it 10× “Code § 11-46-55..., the City Council, having assembled a quorum, met on September 18, 1996, to canvass the results of the runoff election; "3.”
Etheridge v. State Ex Rel. Olson, 730 So. 2d 1179 (Ala. 1999).
· cites it 9× “Of course, it is ambiguous, and the majority admits as much, when, a few lines later in its opinion, it "strongly urge[s]" the Legislature *1186 to "reexamine" it "in conjunction with" §§ 11-46-55 and -69. In short, of the lead opinions issued in the two cases Krages and Pettus…”
Roe v. Mobile Cnty. Appointment Bd., 676 So. 2d 1206 (Ala. 1995).
· cites it 4× “The results were posted, but the canvassing board did not meet by noon August 24, 1988, as required by Code 1975, § 11-46-55 (cum.supp.1988). [6] On August 26, 1988, *1248 appellant Sears obtained a writ of mandamus from the Macon County Circuit Court that ordered the board to…”
Smith v. Burkhalter, 28 So. 3d 730 (Ala. 2009).
· cites it 2× “See § 11-46-55(d). Only the election of a "person declared elected" may be contested under § 11-46-69; therefore, under § 11-46-69 a runoff election must first be held so that a person can be "declared elected" before a contest will lie, with the anomalous result that a…”
Davis v. Reynolds, 592 So. 2d 546 (Ala. 1991).
“Under § 11-46-55, Alabama Code 1975, the municipal governing body was required to open the envelopes not later than 12:00 noon on Wednesday, the day after the election, and determine the number of votes received by each candidate.”
Bandy v. Scrushy (Ex parte Scrushy), 262 So. 3d 638 (Ala. 2018).
· cites it 8× “Pursuant to § 11-46-55, Ala. Code 1975, 1 the Town's governing body timely met and declared Perryman and Reeves the winners of the council seats for District B and issued certificates of election to them.”
Blocker v. City of Roosevelt City, 549 So. 2d 90 (Ala. 1989).
· cites it 2× “The city clerk of Roosevelt City failed to canvass the election, and the city council of Roosevelt City did not act to declare the results of the election as required by Ala.Code 1975, § 11-46-55. On August 17,1988, pursuant to a court order, the election was certified by the…”
Leroy Bandy & David Russell v. City of Birmingham., 73 So. 3d 1233 (Ala. 2011).
· cites it 2× “Found in Article 2 of Title 11, chapter 46, this statute specifies the time for municipal elections: “‘(a) The regular municipal elections in cities and towns shall be held on the fourth Tuesday in August 1984, and quadrennially thereafter, and, when necessary as provided in…”
Carder v. City of Orange Beach, 689 So. 2d 799 (Ala. 1997).
· cites it 3× “Code § 11-46-55 ..., the City Council, having assembled a quorum, met on September 18,1996, to canvass the results of the runoff election; “3.”
Bandy v. Scrushy (Ex parte Scrushy), 262 So. 3d 638 (Ala. 2018).
· cites it 8× “Pursuant to § 11-46-55, Ala. Code 1975, 1 the Town's governing body timely met and declared Perryman and Reeves the winners of the council seats for District B and issued certificates of election to them.”
Walker v. Kelley, 612 So. 2d 456 (Ala. 1993).
· cites it 2× “” The statute in issue, Ala.Code 1975, § 11-46-55, provides, in pertinent part: “(d) If no candidate receives a majority of all the votes cast in such election for any one office or offices for the election to which there were more than two candidates, then the municipal…”
— Ala. Code § 11-46-55(a) — 5 cases
Etheridge v. State Ex Rel. Olson, 730 So. 2d 1179 (Ala. 1999).
“Of course, it is ambiguous, and the majority admits as much, when, a few lines later in its opinion, it "strongly urge[s]" the Legislature *1186 to "reexamine" it "in conjunction with" §§ 11-46-55 and -69. In short, of the lead opinions issued in the two cases Krages and Pettus…”
Ex Parte Krages, 689 So. 2d 799 (Ala. 1997).
“Code § 11-46-55..., the City Council, having assembled a quorum, met on September 18, 1996, to canvass the results of the runoff election; "3.”
Roe v. Mobile Cnty. Appointment Bd., 676 So. 2d 1206 (Ala. 1995).
“The results were posted, but the canvassing board did not meet by noon August 24, 1988, as required by Code 1975, § 11-46-55 (cum.supp.1988). [6] On August 26, 1988, *1248 appellant Sears obtained a writ of mandamus from the Macon County Circuit Court that ordered the board to…”
Bandy v. Scrushy (Ex parte Scrushy), 262 So. 3d 638 (Ala. 2018).
“Pursuant to § 11-46-55, Ala. Code 1975, 1 the Town's governing body timely met and declared Perryman and Reeves the winners of the council seats for District B and issued certificates of election to them.”
Bandy v. Scrushy (Ex parte Scrushy), 262 So. 3d 638 (Ala. 2018).
“Pursuant to § 11-46-55, Ala. Code 1975, 1 the Town's governing body timely met and declared Perryman and Reeves the winners of the council seats for District B and issued certificates of election to them.”
— Ala. Code § 11-46-55(d) — 1 case
Smith v. Burkhalter, 28 So. 3d 730 (Ala. 2009).
“See § 11-46-55(d). Only the election of a "person declared elected" may be contested under § 11-46-69; therefore, under § 11-46-69 a runoff election must first be held so that a person can be "declared elected" before a contest will lie, with the anomalous result that a…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.