O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 21-2-379.1 (2019)

Requirements for use of direct recording electronic voting systems

✓ 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

No direct recording electronic voting system shall be adopted or used unless it shall, at the time, satisfy the following requirements: (1) It shall provide facilities for voting for such candidates as may be nominated and upon such questions as may be submitted; (2) It shall permit each elector, in one operation, to vote for all the candidates of one party or body for presidential electors; (3) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this Code section for presidential electors, it shall permit each elector, at other than primaries, to vote a ticket selected from the nominees of any and all parties or bodies, from independent nominations, and from persons not in nomination; (4) It shall permit each elector to vote, at any election, for any person and for any office for whom and for which he or she is lawfully entitled to vote, whether or not the name of such person or persons appears as a candidate for election; to vote for as many persons for an office as he or she is entitled to vote for; and to vote for or against any question upon which he or she is entitled to vote; (5) It shall preclude the counting of votes for any candidate or upon any question for whom or upon which an elector is not entitled to vote; shall preclude the counting of votes for more persons for any office than he or she is entitled to vote for; and shall preclude the counting of votes for any candidate for the same office or upon any question more than once; (6) It shall permit voting in absolute secrecy so that no person can see or know for whom any other elector has voted or is voting, save an elector whom he or she has assisted or is assisting in voting, as prescribed by law; (7) It shall be constructed of material of good quality in a neat and workmanlike manner; (8) It shall, when properly operated, record correctly and accurately every vote cast;

(9) It shall be so constructed that an elector may readily learn the method of operating it; and (10) It shall be safely transportable.

History

Code 1981, § 21-2-379.1, enacted by Ga. L. 1998, p. 1231, § 37; Ga. L. 2008, p. 261, § 1/SB 456. Administrative rules and regulations. Ballot secrecy, Official Compilation of

the Rules and Regulations of the State of Georgia, Georgia Election Code, Ballots, § 183-1-11-.01.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Direct recording electronic equipment. - Trial court did not err in granting the Secretary of State, the Governor, and the Georgia State Election Board summary judgment in voters’ action challenging the use of direct recording electronic (DRE) equipment because touchscreen machines accurately recorded each

vote when the machines were properly operated, and uncontroverted evidence showed that the Secretary of State had properly certified the DRE voting system pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 21-2-379.2. Favorito v. Handel, 285 Ga. 795, 684 S.E.2d 257, 2009 Ga. LEXIS 486 (2009).

RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. Electronic voting systems, 12 A.L.R.6th 523.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 2009–2009 · leading case: Favorito v. Handel, 684 S.E.2d 257 (Ga. 2009).
Favorito v. Handel, 684 S.E.2d 257 (Ga. 2009). · cites it 2× “” OCGA § 21-2-379.1 (8). However, the undisputed evidence shows that the touch-screen machines accurately record each vote when they are “properly operated.”
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.