O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 21-2-230 (2019)

Challenge of persons on list of electors by other electors; procedure; hearing; right of appeal

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Any elector of the county or municipality may challenge the right of any other elector of the county or municipality, whose name appears on the list of electors, to vote in an election. Such challenge shall be in writing and specify distinctly the grounds of such challenge. Such challenge may be made at any time prior to the elector whose right to vote is being challenged voting at the elector’s polling place or, if such elector cast an absentee ballot, prior to 5:00 P.M. on the day before the absentee ballots are to begin to be scanned and tabulated; provided, however, that challenges to persons voting by absentee ballot in person at the office of the registrars or the absentee ballot clerk shall be made prior to such person’s voting. There shall not be a limit on the number of persons whose qualifications such elector may challenge. (b) Upon the filing of such challenge, the board of registrars shall immediately consider such challenge and determine whether probable cause exists to sustain such challenge. If the registrars do not find probable cause, the challenge shall be denied. If the registrars find probable cause, the registrars shall notify the poll officers of the challenged elector’s precinct or, if the challenged elector voted by absentee ballot, notify the poll officers at the absentee ballot precinct and, if practical, notify the challenged elector and afford such elector an opportunity to answer. (c) If the challenged elector appears at the polling place to vote, such elector shall be given the opportunity to appear before the registrars and answer the grounds of the challenge. (d) If the challenged elector does not cast an absentee ballot and does not appear at the polling place to vote and if the challenge is based on grounds other than the qualifications of the elector to remain on the list of electors, no further action by the registrars shall be required. (e) If the challenged elector cast an absentee ballot and it is not practical to conduct a hearing prior to the close of the polls and the challenge is based upon grounds other than the qualifications of the elector to remain on the list of electors, the absentee ballot shall be treated as a challenged ballot pursuant to subsection (e) of Code Section

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2006–2026 · leading case: Georgia Muslim Voter Proj. v. Kemp, 918 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Georgia Muslim Voter Proj. v. Kemp, 918 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2019). · cites it 20× “32 at 2-3 (incorporating procedural protections set forth in O.C.G.A. §§ 21-2-230, -384, -417, -419).16 Although the 16 The dissent cites two additional statutes—O.”
Martin v. Kemp, 341 F. Supp. 3d 1326 (N.D. Ga. 2018). · cites it 6× “These Plaintiffs also ask that voters whose absentee ballots are rejected be given an opportunity to resolve and appeal a signature discrepancy pursuant to the existing procedures set forth in O.C.G.A. § 21-2-230(g) within three days of Election Day or three days after receiving…”
Cook v. Bd. of Registrars of Randolph Cty., 727 S.E.2d 478 (Ga. 2012). · cites it 8× “By contrast, OCGA § 21-2-230, which was enacted in 1994, see Ga.”
Allen v. Yost, 636 S.E.2d 517 (Ga. 2006). · cites it 8× “Sanders’ motion to dismiss was predicated on OCGA § 21-2-230 (a), which provides that any elector “may challenge the right of any other elector of the county or municipality, whose name appears on the list of electors, to vote in an election,” and that such “challenge may be…”
Smith v. Long Cnty. Bd. of Elections & Reg., 862 S.E.2d 517 (Ga. 2021). · cites it 4× “The trial court was free to disregard DeLoach’s testimony to the contrary, including that he “considered [his] permanent residence to be in Chatham County,” particularly where no 15 See OCGA § 21-2-230 (permitting an elector to challenge a person’s right to vote in a particular…”
Majority Forward v. Ben Hill Cnty. Bd. of Elections (M.D. Ga. 2021). · cites it 18× “, O.C.G.A. § 21-2-230, and the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.”
Warren Mathew Schmitz, Jr v. Fulton Cnty. Bd. of Reg. & Elections (Ga. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 11× “Additionally, the Supreme Court indicated that there may be challenges to a voter’s qualification brought under OCGA § 21-2-229, with a “clear connection to a specific election” that would qualify as an election contest.”
Raffensperger (N.D. Ga. 2026). · cites it 11× “§ 21-2-230 provided a process for a voter (an “elector” in the statute’s parlance) to challenge the ability of another voter in the same county to vote in a particular election. Subsection (b) dictates that a county elections board “immediately” consider such a challenge, notify…”
— 21-2-230(a) — 2 cases
Georgia Muslim Voter Proj. v. Kemp, 918 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2019). “32 at 2-3 (incorporating procedural protections set forth in O.C.G.A. §§ 21-2-230, -384, -417, -419).16 Although the 16 The dissent cites two additional statutes—O.”
Majority Forward v. Ben Hill Cnty. Bd. of Elections (M.D. Ga. 2021). “, O.C.G.A. § 21-2-230, and the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.”
— 21-2-230(b) — 3 cases
Georgia Muslim Voter Proj. v. Kemp, 918 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2019). “32 at 2-3 (incorporating procedural protections set forth in O.C.G.A. §§ 21-2-230, -384, -417, -419).16 Although the 16 The dissent cites two additional statutes—O.”
Raffensperger (N.D. Ga. 2026). “§ 21-2-230 provided a process for a voter (an “elector” in the statute’s parlance) to challenge the ability of another voter in the same county to vote in a particular election. Subsection (b) dictates that a county elections board “immediately” consider such a challenge, notify…”
Majority Forward v. Ben Hill Cnty. Bd. of Elections (M.D. Ga. 2021). “, O.C.G.A. § 21-2-230, and the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.”
— 21-2-230(b)(1) — 1 case
Raffensperger (N.D. Ga. 2026). “§ 21-2-230 provided a process for a voter (an “elector” in the statute’s parlance) to challenge the ability of another voter in the same county to vote in a particular election. Subsection (b) dictates that a county elections board “immediately” consider such a challenge, notify…”
— 21-2-230(g) — 2 cases
Martin v. Kemp, 341 F. Supp. 3d 1326 (N.D. Ga. 2018). “These Plaintiffs also ask that voters whose absentee ballots are rejected be given an opportunity to resolve and appeal a signature discrepancy pursuant to the existing procedures set forth in O.C.G.A. § 21-2-230(g) within three days of Election Day or three days after receiving…”
Georgia Muslim Voter Proj. v. Kemp, 918 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2019). “32 at 2-3 (incorporating procedural protections set forth in O.C.G.A. §§ 21-2-230, -384, -417, -419).16 Although the 16 The dissent cites two additional statutes—O.”
— 21-2-230(h) — 1 case
Majority Forward v. Ben Hill Cnty. Bd. of Elections (M.D. Ga. 2021). “, O.C.G.A. § 21-2-230, and the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.”
— 21-2-230(i) — 1 case
Majority Forward v. Ben Hill Cnty. Bd. of Elections (M.D. Ga. 2021). “, O.C.G.A. § 21-2-230, and the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.”
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.