Syfert Injury Law Firm
Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448No office to which a person has been elected shall be abolished nor the term of the office shortened or lengthened by local or special Act during the term for which such person was elected unless the same shall be approved by the people of the jurisdiction affected in a referendum on the question.
(Code 1981, §1-3-11, enacted by Ga. L. 1983, p. 685, § 1.)
- This Code section continues in effect a similar provision which was contained in Art. III, Sec. VII, Para. IX of the Constitution of Georgia of 1976.
- For annual survey of local government law, see 58 Mercer L. Rev. 267 (2006).
Editor's notes. - In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former Art. III, Sec. VII, Para. IX of the Constitution of Georgia of 1976 are included in the annotations for this Code section.
Local deannexation statute that included the area of the city in which the mayor resided, making the mayor ineligible to hold office, did not violate O.C.G.A. § 1-3-11 because it neither abolished the office of mayor nor shortened nor lengthened the term of office. Lee v. City of Villa Rica, 264 Ga. 606, 449 S.E.2d 295 (1994).
- Provision prohibiting the abolishing of elective office during term without a referendum submitted to the people of the area affected may not be extended by implication to place a restraint upon the general power of the General Assembly to create or abolish the charters of municipal corporations. Mountain View v. Clayton County, 242 Ga. 163, 249 S.E.2d 541 (1978).
- Because the legislature, at the request of a city council, passed legislation authorizing the city to change its form of government from a strong mayor/weak council system to a weak mayor/strong council system employing a city manager, this did not violate O.C.G.A. § 1-3-11, as the mayor's office continued to exist, albeit with largely ceremonial duties; the mayor's duties could be altered as long as the remaining duties were appropriate to the office, which they were. Griffin v. City Council, 279 Ga. 835, 621 S.E.2d 734 (2005).
- Because the legislature, at the request of a city council, passed legislation authorizing the city to change its form of government from a strong mayor/weak council system to a weak mayor/strong council system employing a city manager, no referendum was required under O.C.G.A. § 1-3-11 because the mayor's office was not abolished. Griffin v. City Council, 279 Ga. 835, 621 S.E.2d 734 (2005).
- Referendum changing the number of members on a board of education did not comply with O.C.G.A. § 1-3-11 because the voters were not informed that approval of the bill would shorten a board member's term by two years, but, instead, the bill and notice of intention to introduce local legislation incorrectly stated that it would provide for the continuation in office of current members. Burton-Callaway v. Carroll County Bd. of Elections, 279 Ga. 590, 619 S.E.2d 634 (2005).
Local law cannot extend tenure in office of an elected official who would otherwise immediately vacate that office when qualifying to run for another elected position. 2000 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 2000-3.
Total Results: 8
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2023-10-11
Snippet: Code, the trial court determined that OCGA § 16-1-3 (11), which defines “peace officer” as “any person
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2016-11-30
Citation: 300 Ga. 371, 794 S.E.2d 601, 2016 Ga. LEXIS 779
Snippet: was not a “peace officer.” See, e.g., OCGA § 16-1-3 (11) (“ ‘Peace officer’ means any person who by virtue
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2005-11-07
Citation: 279 Ga. 835, 621 S.E.2d 734, 2005 Ga. LEXIS 761
Snippet: mayor was not abolished in violation of OCGA § 1-3-11, that the local legislation passed by the General
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2005-09-19
Citation: 619 S.E.2d 634, 279 Ga. 590, 2005 Fulton County D. Rep. 2827, 2005 Ga. LEXIS 528
Snippet: that the referendum did not comply with OCGA § 1-3-11, because the voters were not informed that their
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1994-11-07
Citation: 264 Ga. 606, 449 S.E.2d 295, 94 Fulton County D. Rep. 3573, 1994 Ga. LEXIS 871
Snippet: enactment of the de-annexation statute violated OCGA § 1-3-11, which provides: No office to which a person has
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1991-11-27
Citation: 410 S.E.2d 735, 261 Ga. 710, 1991 Ga. LEXIS 1008
Snippet: Georgia or Federal Constitutions and that OCGA § 1-3-11 did not apply because Fulton was an appointed official
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1919-09-27
Citation: 149 Ga. 405, 100 S.E. 439, 1919 Ga. LEXIS 257
Snippet: 308); L. & N. R. Co. v. United States, 238 U. S. 1 (3), 11 (35 Sup. Ct. 696, 59 L. ed. 1177); R. Com. of
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1881-09-15
Citation: 68 Ga. 241
Snippet: Columbus, subject to the rights of the owners of lots 1, 3, 11, 13 and 15, each to one-nineteenth part of the