Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 21-2-527 | Car Wreck Lawyer

Link to State of Georgia Official Statute 2018 Georgia Code Annotated (sourced from legal.resource.org)
O.C.G.A. 21-2-527 Case Law from Google Scholar Amendments to OCGA 21-2-527

TITLE 21 ELECTIONS

Section 2. Elections and Primaries Generally, 21-2-1 through 21-2-604.

ARTICLE 13 CONTESTED ELECTIONS AND PRIMARIES

21-2-527. Pronouncement of judgment; effect of finding of misconduct by poll officers; calling of second primary, election, or runoff by court upon finding of defects.

  1. After hearing the allegations and evidence in the contest, the court shall declare as nominated, elected, or as eligible to compete in a run-off primary or election that qualified candidate who received the requisite number of votes and shall pronounce judgment accordingly; and the clerk of the superior court shall certify such determination to the proper authority. In the case of a contest involving a question submitted to electors at an election, the court shall pronounce judgment as to whether the same was approved or disapproved; and the clerk of the superior court shall certify such determination to the defendant.
  2. When a defendant who has received the requisite number of votes for nomination, election, or to compete in a run-off primary or election is determined to be ineligible for the nomination or office sought, the court shall pronounce judgment declaring the primary or election invalid with regard to such nomination or office and shall call a second primary or election to fill such nomination or office and shall set the date for such second primary or election.
  3. If misconduct is complained of on the part of the poll officers of any precinct, it shall not be held sufficient to set aside the contested result unless the rejection of the vote of such precinct would change such result.
  4. Whenever the court trying a contest shall determine that the primary, election, or runoff is so defective as to the nomination, office, or eligibility in contest as to place in doubt the result of the entire primary, election, or runoff for such nomination, office, or eligibility, such court shall declare the primary, election, or runoff to be invalid with regard to such nomination, office, or eligibility and shall call for a second primary, election, or runoff to be conducted among all of the same candidates who participated in the primary, election, or runoff to fill such nomination or office which was declared invalid and shall set the date for such second primary, election, or runoff.

(Code 1933, § 34-1708, enacted by Ga. L. 1964, Ex. Sess., p. 26, § 1; Ga. L. 1982, p. 1512, § 5; Ga. L. 1987, p. 34, § 1; Ga. L. 1987, p. 1360, § 19; Ga. L. 1991, p. 133, § 1; Ga. L. 1995, p. 1027, § 17; Ga. L. 1997, p. 590, § 40; Ga. L. 1998, p. 295, § 1.)

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Extent of jurisdiction over primary contest.

- In a contest of a the primary election, trial court's jurisdiction is limited strictly to the primary, and the court is not authorized to interfere with the holding of the subsequent general election. Smiley v. Gaskin, 115 Ga. App. 547, 154 S.E.2d 740 (1967).

What contestant must show.

- If the contestant can sustain charges, or enough of them to cast doubt upon whether the election was fairly and lawfully conducted, it should be voided and another held. If the contestant cannot, the election should stand. Nichols v. Acree, 112 Ga. App. 287, 145 S.E.2d 92 (1965).

Persons who may compete in rerun.

- The ordering of a rerun of a primary, after a contest in a race is sustained, is no reason for permitting other persons, who were not properly qualified to run in the contested primary, to qualify and compete in the rerun. Ingram v. Lott, 238 Ga. 513, 233 S.E.2d 770 (1977).

Overruling of a general demurrer (since abolished) to an election contest proceeding is appealable. Blackburn v. Hall, 115 Ga. App. 235, 154 S.E.2d 392 (1967).

Improperly cast ballots must affect race in question.

- Where contestant established that 131 absentee ballots were not properly cast in the general election, but the contestant did not establish that any of the improper absentee ballots were cast in the contested race, the contestant was unable to place in doubt the result of the election, and the trial court correctly found in favor of the winner as certified by the county superintendent of election. Bailey v. Colwell, 263 Ga. 111, 428 S.E.2d 570 (1993).

Cited in Broome v. Martin, 111 Ga. App. 51, 140 S.E.2d 500 (1965); Hollifield v. Vickers, 118 Ga. App. 229, 162 S.E.2d 905 (1968); Lowe v. Weltner, 118 Ga. App. 635, 164 S.E.2d 919 (1968); Henderson v. County Bd. of Registration & Elections, 126 Ga. App. 280, 190 S.E.2d 633 (1972); Carroll v. Cates, 134 Ga. App. 10, 213 S.E.2d 120 (1975); Miller v. Kilpatrick, 140 Ga. App. 193, 230 S.E.2d 328 (1976); Hammill v. Valentine, 258 Ga. 603, 373 S.E.2d 9 (1988); Haynes v. Wells, 273 Ga. 106, 538 S.E.2d 430 (2000); Fuller v. Thomas, 284 Ga. 397, 667 S.E.2d 587 (2008).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Voters in rerun election.

- When a rerun of an election is ordered by a judge of the superior court as a result of the sustaining of an election contest, the rerun election should be limited to those voters who were qualified to vote in the original election. 1985 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 85-14.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 26 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections, § 432.

C.J.S.

- 29 C.J.S., Elections, § 517 et seq.

ALR.

- Constitutionality, construction, and application of statute which declares a defeated candidate for nomination ineligible as a candidate at general election, or prohibits printing his name on official ballot, 143 A.L.R. 603.

Treatment of excess or illegal ballots when it is not known for which candidate or on which side of a proposition they were cast, 155 A.L.R. 677.

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 21-2-527

Total Results: 11  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Haynes v. Wells, 538 S.E.2d 430 (Ga. 2000).

Cited 23 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Nov 1, 2000 | 273 Ga. 106, 2000 Fulton County D. Rep. 4018

...ibly shifts the burden of proof to the winning candidate. Such an approach is contrary to Georgia jurisprudence and it is contrary to reason. For the reasons outlined above, I respectfully dissent. NOTES [1] See OCGA § 21-2-132(e)(4). Although OCGA § 21-2-527(b) provides that when a court determines that the winning candidate in an election contest is ineligible to hold office, the court generally must order a second primary or election to fill the office, the trial court in this matter concluded that a second primary was inappropriate....
Copy

Mead v. Sheffield, 601 S.E.2d 99 (Ga. 2004).

Cited 19 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Sep 2, 2004 | 278 Ga. 268, 2004 Fulton County D. Rep. 2865

...Remaining reasons asserted as bases for affirming the trial court, including Mead's waiver of the ballots' illegality and the receipt by 105 of the absentee voters of oral notification of the absence of a qualified candidate's name, have been considered and found to be without merit. OCGA § 21-2-527(d) provides that, [w]henever the court trying a contest shall determine that the ......
...office which was declared invalid and shall set the date for such second ... election.... Thus, the proper disposition of this appeal is a reversal of the judgment and a remand of the case to the trial court with direction that, in accordance with OCGA § 21-2-527(d), it enter an order requiring that a new statewide election be held to fill the seat on the Court of Appeals....
...nt to place in doubt the result of the Court of Appeals contest. Thus, I agree with the majority that the trial court's judgment must be reversed and the case remanded with the direction that the trial court act expeditiously in accordance with OCGA § 21-2-527(d)....
Copy

Rhonda J. Martin v. Fulton Cnty. Bd. of Reg. & Elections, 307 Ga. 193 (Ga. 2019).

Cited 10 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Oct 31, 2019

...undervote between elections for governor and lieutenant governor over the previous four general elections — the difference constitutes an “[e]xtreme [u]ndervote” that places in doubt the result of the election for lieutenant governor and requires a new election under OCGA § 21-2-527 (d)....
Copy

Bailey v. Colwell, 428 S.E.2d 570 (Ga. 1993).

Cited 10 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | May 3, 1993 | 263 Ga. 111, 93 Fulton County D. Rep. 1766

...316 (1) (264 SE2d 872) (1980). A trial court hearing an election contest may declare an election invalid and call for a second election if it determines that the election "is so defective ... as to place in doubt the result of the ... election...." OCGA § 21-2-527 (d)....
Copy

Howell v. Fears, 571 S.E.2d 392 (Ga. 2002).

Cited 8 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Oct 15, 2002 | 275 Ga. 627, 2002 Fulton County D. Rep. 2966

...[2] He only had to show that there were enough irregular ballots to place in doubt the result. He succeeded in that task. Howell asserts the superior court erroneously ordered a new primary election for the entire House District inasmuch as irregular ballots were only cast in Precinct 9. We disagree. OCGA § 21-2-527(d) provides: Whenever the court trying a contest shall determine that the primary, election, or runoff is so defective as to the nomination, office, or eligibility in contest as to place in doubt the result of the entire primary, election...
Copy

Caplan v. Hattaway, 501 S.E.2d 195 (Ga. 1998).

Cited 7 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 1, 1998 | 269 Ga. 582, 98 Fulton County D. Rep. 1850

...Chatman, supra at 877, 485 S.E.2d 723. Here, the written order denying injunctive relief was not entered until December 3, 1997 and, thus, Ms. Caplan could not have filed her notice of appeal until some time after the run-off election was held. However, OCGA § 21-2-527 provides for the trial court's "pronouncement of judgment" in election contest cases and OCGA § 21-2-528 further provides that the appellant may apply for a stay or supersedeas "without regard to whether any notice of appeal has been fil...
Copy

Fuller v. Thomas, 667 S.E.2d 587 (Ga. 2008).

Cited 5 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Oct 6, 2008 | 284 Ga. 397, 2008 Fulton County D. Rep. 3149

...The trial court did not err in denying petitioners' demand for a jury trial. 3. The results of a runoff election will not be set aside simply because the trial court, in its written order, neglected to state which candidates would be eligible to compete in the runoff. See OCGA § 21-2-527(a)....
Copy

Miller v. Hodge, 905 S.E.2d 562 (Ga. 2024).

Cited 4 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Aug 13, 2024 | 319 Ga. 543

Copy

Daniel v. Barrow, 256 Ga. 318 (Ga. 1986).

Cited 3 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Oct 8, 1986 | 348 S.E.2d 649

...he discrepancies would not have had an effect on his first place position. And we also agree that the discrepancies made it impossible to determine whether Daniel or Barrow was the second place winner. The trial court was correct in relying on OCGA § 21-2-527 (d) and ordering a runoff between Daniel and Barrow who were obviously the only two candidates the discrepancies affected. Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur except Smith and Gregory, JJ., who dissent as to Division 2, Weltner,...
Copy

Hammill v. Valentine, 258 Ga. 603 (Ga. 1988).

Cited 2 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Oct 21, 1988 | 373 S.E.2d 9

...irst petition and he consolidated the two cases. The trial court found that there was a sufficient number of illegal votes cast and counted in the race to place the results of the election in doubt. See OCGA § 21-2-522 (3). In compliance with OCGA § 21-2-527 (d), the trial judge declared the election invalid and issued a call for another election to be conducted on October 25, 1988. 1....
...ng the results of the election in doubt. See OCGA § 21-2-522 (3); Taggart v. Phillips, 242 Ga. 454 (249 SE2d 245) (1978). After making its finding, the trial court was required to declare the election invalid and call for another election. See OCGA § 21-2-527 (d)....
Copy

Dean v. State of Georgia, 321 Ga. 836 (Ga. 2025).

Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | May 28, 2025

...Dean challenges the qualifications of candidates for a primary election that determined the candidates for a general election, but both of those elections were carried out and certified years ago, in 2022. And Dean does not even ask to overturn those elections or call for new ones, see OCGA § 21-2-527, but merely for a judicial declaration about who was qualified to run in the primary....
...And effective relief 13 was still available to a successful challenger in Caplan: after all, the Election Code expressly allows election contests to be brought after a general election and expressly contemplates courts declaring such an election invalid and calling for a new one. OCGA § 21-2-527 (d). So the appeal in Caplan simply was not moot. In Caplan and decisions that followed it, this unsupported expansion of the mootness doctrine in election contests also started to morph into our current “prudential” dispatch doctrine....