CopyCited 7 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Mar 1, 2010 | 286 Ga. 582, 2010 Fulton County D. Rep. 522
...She also contended that, because the web site did not properly break down the number of cast absentee ballots by precinct, Cobb County could have easily manipulated the vote results by having failed to add absentee ballots to the returns received from the precincts from which the ballots were cast. See OCGA §
21-2-493(j) ("The superintendent shall see that the votes shown by each absentee ballot are added to the return received from the precinct of the elector casting such ballot")....
...voters that existed; and the manner in which the web site broke down the number of absentee voters did not reflect, or have anything to do with, any alleged failure to add absentee ballots to the returns received from various precincts. Indeed, OCGA §
21-2-493(j) does not dictate the manner in which absentee ballots are to be displayed on a web site, and the manner in which absentee ballots are displayed on a web site has absolutely no bearing on any action that has or has not been taken by the...
...ror has occurred. Moreover, Ellis did not change our "any evidence" standard of review (which is undoubtedly a low threshold to be met) with respect to upholding an award of attorney's fees on appeal. See Kendall, supra. Here, despite citing to OCGA §
21-2-493(j), Davis presented no underlying factual basis, but only speculation, to support her belief that a counting error had occurred. She did not present any interpretation of the plain language of OCGA §
21-2-493(j) that would have provided even "arguable support for [her] contention[s]" (see Ellis, supra,
263 Ga. at 517(2),
435 S.E.2d 923), and the evidence that she presented to the trial court (1) bore no relationship to any of the requirements set forth in OCGA §
21-2-493(j), and (2) did not place in doubt a single vote of the 24,462 votes that she was missing in order to catch up to Judge Kell....
...I respectfully disagree with the majority opinion's decision to affirm the trial court's award of OCGA §
9-15-14(a) attorney fees in this contested judicial election. At the petition hearing, Davis presented evidence that an irregularity had occurred when the county election officials failed to adhere to OCGA §
21-2-493(j)....
...That statute specifically requires the superintendent of elections to add each absentee ballot to the election return of the elector's precinct. In this case, Davis argued to the trial court that she believed that election officials failed to comply with OCGA §
21-2-493(j) when they failed to report absentee ballots in the precinct of the elector....
...When Davis cross-examined the election official, the election official confirmed that absentee ballots were reported in an artificial absentee precinct rather than reported *394 in the precinct of the elector as indicated by statute. [5] Coupled with her concerns about compliance with OCGA §
21-2-493(j), Davis, who is an African-American female, raised concerns about the impact of the county's actions on African-American voters....
...mposed on the non-prevailing contestant because the contestant raised a statutory interpretation issue that had not previously been analyzed by any court. Likewise, there appear to be no cases interpreting how a county meets the requirements of OCGA §
21-2-493(j) or any investigation of how the county's election practices may impact minority voters. Inasmuch as Davis called upon the trial court to determine whether the county complied with OCGA §
21-2-493(j) and the effect of any noncompliance, there was a valid justiciable issue in play....
...NOTES [1] This Court dismissed as moot Davis' other claims relating to the election contest at issue by order dated October 27, 2009. [2] In this regard, the portion of the transcript cited by the dissent in its footnote 5 lends no support to the assertion that Davis presented evidence to support any claim under OCGA §
21-2-493(j)....
...the web site, absentee ballot information was being displayed "for reporting purposes," and not about information that had anything to do with any actions that were or were not taken by the superintendent with respect to any requirements under OCGA §
21-2-493(j)....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 10, 2025
...ble guidelines needed to
comply with the nondelegation doctrine. With these principles in
mind, we turn to the five rules the Plaintiffs have standing to
challenge.
(i) The Examination Rule (Rule 183-1-12-.12 (a) (.1) (6)).
Under OCGA §
21-2-493 (b), if “the total vote returned for any
candidate or candidates for the same office or nomination or on any
question exceeds the number of electors in such precinct or exceeds
the total number of persons who voted in such precinct o...
...81
investigated by the superintendent[.]” As part of this investigation,
the superintendent shall “examine all the registration and primary
or election documents whatever relating to such precinct[.]” OCGA
§
21-2-493 (b)....
...82
The Appellants argue that the Examination Rule simply
ensures that “all board members can examine election-related
documents.” Thus, they argue that the Examination Rule is
essentially identical to OCGA §
21-2-493 (b). But the rule sweeps
more broadly than the statute in at least three meaningful ways.
First, OCGA §
21-2-493 (b) limits a local election official’s review to
certain documents “relating to such precinct,” while the rule
contains no geographical limitation whatsoever....
...election.” Ga. Comp. R. & Regs., r. 183-1-12-.02 (1) (c.2). The
Plaintiffs argue that directing election officials to engage in a
“reasonable inquiry” before certifying election results contradicts
86
OCGA §
21-2-493, which establishes the methods and procedures
superintendents must follow when certifying the election results.
We agree.
Pursuant to OCGA §
21-2-493, “[t]he superintendent shall,
after the close of the polls on the day of a primary or election, ....
....
publicly commence the computation and canvassing of the returns”
and “[u]pon the completion of such computation and canvassing, the
superintendent shall tabulate the figures for the entire county or
municipality and sign, announce, and attest the same, as required
by this Code section.” OCGA §
21-2-493 (a) (emphasis added). OCGA
§
21-2-493 (b) further requires that, “before computing the votes cast
in any precinct,” the superintendent “shall compare the registration
figure with the certificates returned by the poll officers showing the
number of persons who voted i...
...87
ballots cast therein,” the superintendent shall initiate an
investigation. Id. This investigation may “include a recount or
recanvass of the votes of that precinct[.]” Id.
The Appellants argue that because OCGA §
21-2-493 does not
define the term “certify,” the Reasonable Inquiry Rule provides
election officials with necessary guidance. But OCGA §
21-2-493
outlines in detail the procedures the superintendent must follow
before certifying election results, including comparing the number
of registered voters with the number of people who voted or the
number of ballots cast and recounting or recanvassing votes.
Ultimately, even if the superintendent discovers any error or fraud
in the computation of votes, the superintendent “shall . . . certify the
votes[.]” OCGA §
21-2-493 (i) (emphasis added);28 see Hall County
Bd....
...decision of a local election superintendent.
88
election officials to delay certification to conduct an undefined
“reasonable inquiry” into the validity of the results is incompatible
with the clear requirements of OCGA §
21-2-493....
Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 10, 2025 | 286 Ga. 528, 2010 Fulton County D. Rep. 161
...supplies the objective, judicially enforceable guidelines needed to
comply with the nondelegation doctrine. With these principles in
mind, we turn to the five rules the Plaintiffs have standing to
challenge.
(i) The Examination Rule (Rule 183-1-12-.12 (.1) (6))
Under OCGA §
21-2-493 (b), if “the total vote returned for any
candidate or candidates for the same office or nomination or on any
question ....
...investigated by the superintendent[.]” As part of this investigation,
81
the superintendent shall “examine all the registration and primary
or election documents whatever relating to such precinct[.]” OCGA
§
21-2-493 (b)....
...The Appellants argue that the Examination Rule simply
25 See footnote 12 above.
82
ensures that “all board members can examine election-related
documents.” Thus, they argue that the Examination Rule is
essentially identical to OCGA §
21-2-493 (b). But the rule sweeps
more broadly than the statute in at least three meaningful ways.
First, OCGA §
21-2-493 (b) limits a local election official’s review to
certain documents “relating to such precinct,” while the rule
contains no geographical limitation whatsoever....
...results are a true and accurate accounting of all votes cast in that
election.” Ga. Comp. R. & Regs., r. 183-1-12-.02 (1) (c.2). The
Plaintiffs argue that directing election officials to engage in a
“reasonable inquiry” before certifying election results contradicts
OCGA §
21-2-493, which establishes the methods and procedures
86
superintendents must follow when certifying the election results.
We agree.
Pursuant to OCGA §
21-2-493, “[t]he superintendent shall,
after the close of the polls on the day of a primary or election, ....
....
publicly commence the computation and canvassing of the returns”
and “[u]pon the completion of such computation and canvassing, the
superintendent shall tabulate the figures for the entire county or
municipality and sign, announce, and attest the same, as required
by this Code section.” OCGA §
21-2-493 (a) (emphasis added). OCGA
§
21-2-493 (b) further requires that, “before computing the votes cast
in any precinct,” the superintendent “shall compare the registration
figure with the certificates returned by the poll officers showing the
number of persons who voted i...
...ballots cast therein,” the superintendent shall initiate an
87
investigation. Id. This investigation may “include a recount or
recanvass of the votes of that precinct[.]” Id.
The Appellants argue that because OCGA §
21-2-493 does not
define the term “certify,” the Reasonable Inquiry Rule provides
election officials with necessary guidance. But OCGA §
21-2-493
outlines in detail the procedures the superintendent must follow
before certifying election results, including comparing the number
of registered voters with the number of people who voted or the
number of ballots cast and recounting or recanvassing votes.
Ultimately, even if the superintendent discovers any error or fraud
in the computation of votes, the superintendent “shall . . . certify the
votes[.]” OCGA §
21-2-493 (i) (emphasis added);28 see Hall County
Bd....
...that the General Assembly has prescribed means other than the unilateral
decision of a local election superintendent.
88
“reasonable inquiry” into the validity of the results is incompatible
with the clear requirements of OCGA §
21-2-493....
