Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 21-2-494 | Car Wreck Lawyer

TITLE 21 ELECTIONS

Section 2. Elections and Primaries Generally, 21-2-1 through 21-2-604.

ARTICLE 12 RETURNS

21-2-494. Computation and certification of write-in votes.

The superintendent, in computing the votes cast at any election, shall compute and certify only those write-in votes cast for candidates who have given proper notice of intent to be write-in candidates pursuant to Code Section 21-2-133 exactly as such names were written by the elector.

(Code 1933, § 34-1506, enacted by Ga. L. 1964, Ex. Sess., p. 26, § 1; Ga. L. 1969, p. 292, § 1; Ga. L. 1987, p. 417, § 9; Ga. L. 1998, p. 295, § 1.)

Law reviews.

- For survey article on local government law, see 59 Mercer L. Rev. 285 (2007).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Editor's notes.

- In light of the similarity of the issues, decisions under former Code 1933, § 34-1505 are included in the annotations for this Code section.

Constitutionality.

- Trial court did not err in finding that O.C.G.A. § 21-2-494 was constitutional, despite an election challenger's claim that it impermissibly allowed the exclusion of votes for write-in candidates and because it did not require that voters be provided with notice that write-in votes for unqualified candidates would not be counted, as: (1) it was undisputed that nine write-in votes were cast for individuals who were not eligible to hold office, as these people did not give proper notice of their intention of candidacy; (2) no voters were disenfranchised; (3) each voter was given the opportunity to vote for the candidate of his or her own choosing; and (4) the legislature properly exercised its power when it limited the counting of write-in votes to votes cast for qualified write-in candidates. Brodie v. Champion, 281 Ga. 105, 636 S.E.2d 511 (2006).

Persons with spelling problems.

- Persons who do not spell well may take a paper with them into the voting booth which contains the correct spelling of their candidate's name and from which they may copy that name. Morris v. Fortson, 261 F. Supp. 538 (N.D. Ga. 1966) (decided under former Code 1933, § 34-1505).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Editor's notes.

- In light of the similarity of the issues, opinions decided under former Code 1933, § 34-1505, are included in the annotations for this section.

Stickers, pasters, and stamps.

- The use of stickers, pasters, and stamps is not permitted in casting a write-in vote in instances where voting machines or vote recorders are used. 1965-66 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 66-230 (decided under former Code 1933, § 34-1505).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 26 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections, § 327 et seq.

C.J.S.

- 29 C.J.S., Elections, § 298 et seq.

ALR.

- Validity of write-in vote where candidate's surname only is written in on ballot, 86 A.L.R.2d 1025.

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 21-2-494

Total Results: 1  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Brodie v. Champion, 636 S.E.2d 511 (Ga. 2006).

Cited 3 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Oct 16, 2006 | 281 Ga. 105

...The City of Atlanta contracted with the Board of Registration and Elections (Board) to act as superintendent for the election. In tabulating the number of votes cast, the Board did not consider nine write-in ballots that had been submitted for unqualified candidates. See OCGA § 21-2-494. Brodie challenged the election in a lawsuit against Fauver and two members of the Board, Gloria Champion and Juanita Eber, asserting *512 that OCGA § 21-2-494 was unconstitutional. [1] Fauver moved to dismiss the complaint. The trial court concluded that OCGA § 21-2-494 was constitutional, and in a separate order denied Fauver's motion to dismiss. In Case No. S06A1029 Brodie claims that the trial court erred in concluding that OCGA § 21-2-494 is constitutional. In Case No. S06X1030, Fauver appeals from the denial of her motion to dismiss. We affirm in both cases. Case No. S06A1029 Brodie claims that OCGA § 21-2-494 is unconstitutional because it impermissibly allows the exclusion of votes for write-in candidates and because it does not require that voters be provided with notice that write-in votes for unqualified candidates would not be counted....
...nicipal elections in the case of a general election." It is undisputed here that the nine write-in votes were cast for individuals who were not eligible to hold office, as these people did not give proper notice of their intention of candidacy. OCGA § 21-2-494 operates in tandem with OCGA § 21-2-133 by, providing that "Mlle superintendent, in E computing the votes cast at any election, shall compute and certify only those write-in votes cast for candidates who have given proper notice of inten...
...Indeed, if votes were counted for unqualified write-in candidates, it would lend legitimacy to candidates that the legislature has already determined to be ineligible for office. Thus, the same constitutional power that authorized the General Assembly to pass OCGA § 21-2-133 also authorized it to pass OCGA § 21-2-494....
...tes for unqualified candidates were ignored by the Board is still incorrect. The Board did consider such write-in votes, as it was required to, in order to determine whether the votes had been cast for constitutionally qualified candidates. See OCGA § 21-2-494....
...Brodie's argument to the contrary notwithstanding, the result here is consistent with our holding in Thompson. The legislature properly exercised its power when it limited the counting of writein votes to votes cast for qualified write-in candidates. We further find no merit to Brodie's argument that OCGA § 21-2-494 is unconstitutional for failing to require that voters be given notice that write-in votes for unqualified write-in candidates would not be counted. Indeed, OCGA § 21-2-494 itself expressly states that "only those write-in votes cast for candidates who have given proper notice of intent to be write-in candidates" will be counted....