O.C.G.A. § 21-2-417 (2019)

Annotations

Law reviews. For note on the 2001 amendment to this Code section, see 18 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 114 (2001). For article, “Local Government Law,” see 53 Mercer L. Rev. 389 (2001). For article on 2005 amendment of this Code section, see 22 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 109 (2005). For article on 2006 amendment of this Code section, see 23 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 145 (2006).

For survey article on trial practice and procedure, see 60 Mercer L. Rev. 397 (2008). For article, “Ethics and Professionalism in the Digital Age: Ninth Annual Georgia Symposium on Ethics and Professionalism: A Symposium of the Mercer Law Review: Casenote: Constitutional Burdens on the Right to Vote: Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, Ian McMullen,” see 60 Mercer L. Rev. 1007 (2009). For article, “Reasonable Restrictions on the Franchise: Georgia’s Voter Identification Act of 2006,” see 63 Mercer L. Rev. 1129 (2012).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Constitutionality. - In an action by a political party challenging the 2006 Photo ID Act, amending O.C.G.A. § 21-2-417, no

voter was disenfranchised by the Act and, therefore, the Act did not violate Ga. Const. 1983, Art. II, Sec. I, Para. III.

ELECTIONS & PRIMARIES

Democratic Party of Ga., Inc. v. Perdue, 288 Ga. 720, 707 S.E.2d 67, 2011 Ga. LEXIS 184 (2011). In an action by a political party challenging the 2006 Photo ID Act, amending O.C.G.A. § 21-2-417, the photo ID requirement for in-person voting was authorized by Ga. Const. 1983, Art. II, Sec. I, Para. I as a reasonable procedure for verifying that the individual appearing to vote in person was actually the same person who registered to vote. Democratic Party of Ga., Inc. v. Perdue, 288 Ga. 720, 707 S.E.2d 67, 2011 Ga. LEXIS 184 (2011). Equal protection. - Because it was likely that the voting organizations could prevail on the merits of their claims that the photo identification requirement of O.C.G.A. § 21-2-417 violated the equal protection clause, a preliminary injunction was issued preventing its enforcement or application; many voters with no other ID had no transportation to the service centers, impairments precluded waiting in lengthy lines or an inability to travel during business hours, and thus the requirement would be a hardship for many such voters, making the exercise of the fundamental right to vote extremely difficult, especially affecting the elderly, poor, and African-American voters. Common Cause/GA v. Billups, 406 F. Supp. 2d 1326, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26222 (N.D. Ga. 2005), dismissed in part, No. 4:05-CV0201-HLM, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116451 (N.D. Ga. June 29, 2006), dismissed in part, No. 4:05-CV-0201-HLM, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117246 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 17, 2007). Court enjoined the enforcement of the photo identification requirement of the 2006 Photo ID Act, codified at O.C.G.A. §§ 21-2-417, 21-2-417.1, and 40-5-103(d), because the requirement unduly burdened the right to vote in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause, at least with respect to the July 18, 2006, primary elections and the corresponding primary run-off elections; the nonprofit organizations and their constituents would have suffered irreparable harm if the court did not grant a preliminary injunction with respect to those elections and, considering the right at issue and the likely injury caused by not enter-

ing a preliminary injunction, the threatened harm to the nonprofit organizations outweighed the potential injury to the state and various election officials; finally, entering a preliminary injunction for the elections at issue served the public interest by preserving voting rights. Common Cause/Georgia v. Billups, 439 F. Supp. 2d 1294, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56100 (N.D. Ga. 2006), dismissed, 504 F. Supp. 2d 1333, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68950 (N.D. Ga. 2007). Permanent injunction barring enforcement of O.C.G.A. § 21-2-417 was properly denied because under the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause, the legitimate interest of the state in preventing voter fraud justified the insignificant burden of requiring all voters to present photo identification before the voters voted in person. Common Cause/Georgia v. Billups, 554 F.3d 1340, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 593 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 556 U.S. 1282, 129 S. Ct. 2770, 174 L. Ed. 2d 271, 2009 U.S. LEXIS 4201 (2009). In an action by a political party challenging the 2006 Photo ID Act, amending O.C.G.A. § 21-2-417, the Act did not violate the equal protection clause of Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Para. II because the photo ID requirement as implemented was a minimal, reasonable, nondiscriminatory restriction that was warranted by the important regulatory interest of preventing voter fraud. Democratic Party of Ga., Inc. v. Perdue, 288 Ga. 720, 707 S.E.2d 67, 2011 Ga. LEXIS 184 (2011). No standing to challenge constitutionality. - A plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of the 2006 Photo-ID Act, codified at O.C.G.A. §§ 212-417, 21-2-417.1 and 40-5-103(d), at the time the complaint was filed, and thus the determination that the Act violated Ga. Const. 1983, Art. II, Sec. I, Paras. II and III had to be vacated; the plaintiff could have voted in person under O.C.G.A. § 21-2-417 without a photo identification as the plaintiff did not contend that the plaintiff lacked any of the forms of nonphoto identification allowed to be shown by first-time voters. Perdue v. Lake, 282 Ga. 348, 647 S.E.2d 6, 2007 Ga. LEXIS 433 (2007). Organization had standing to challenge. - Civil rights organization had standing under U.S. Const. Art. III to

challenge O.C.G.A. § 21-2-417 requiring voters to present photo identification prior to voting in person because the organization suffered a sufficient injury by forcing the organization to divert resources to counteract allegedly illegal acts. Common Cause/Georgia v. Billups, 554 F.3d 1340, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 593 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 556 U.S. 1282, 129 S. Ct. 2770, 174 L. Ed. 2d 271, 2009 U.S. LEXIS 4201 (2009). Preliminary injunction. - Because it was likely that voting organizations could prevail on the merits of their claims that the photo identification requirement of O.C.G.A. § 21-2-417 violated the Twenty-Fourth amendment, a preliminary injunction was issued preventing enforcement or application of the requirement; having to buy the photo ID, the cost

of which had also increased, placed a cost on voting. Common Cause/GA v. Billups, 406 F. Supp. 2d 1326, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26222 (N.D. Ga. 2005), dismissed in part, No. 4:05-CV-0201-HLM, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116451 (N.D. Ga. June 29, 2006), dismissed in part, No. 4:05-CV0201-HLM, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117246 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 17, 2007). Invalidation of election reversed on appeal. - Trial court erred by invalidating an election for sheriff and ordering a new election because the evidence of systemic misconduct for vote buying and alleged wrongful distribution of absentee ballots was speculative and insufficient to support the trial court’s conclusion that irregularities cause doubt on the results. Meade v. Williamson, 293 Ga. 142, 745 S.E.2d 279, 2013 Ga. LEXIS 502 (2013).

RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. Constitutionality of requiring presentation of photographic identification in order to vote, 27 A.L.R.6th 541. Voter identification requirements as de-

nying or abridging right to vote on account of race or color under § 2 of Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C.A. § 10301, 12 A.L.R. Fed. 3d 4.