O.C.G.A.
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.
As used in this article, the term: (1) “Contestant” means any person or persons entitled under Code Section 21-2-521 to contest the result of any primary or election. (2) “Defendant” means: (A) The person whose nomination or election is contested;
ELECTIONS & PRIMARIES
(B) The person or persons whose eligibility to seek any nomination or office in a run-off primary or election is contested; (C) The election superintendent or superintendents who conducted the contested primary or election; or (D) The public officer who formally declared the number of votes for and against any question submitted to electors at an election.
History
Code 1933, § 34-1701, enacted by Ga. L.
1964, Ex. Sess., p. 26, § 1; Ga. L. 1987, p. 1050, § 1; Ga. L. 1998, p. 295, § 1.
Annotations
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Failure to name Board of Registration and Elections as a party. - In an election contest, the trial court did not err in denying an incumbent’s motion to dismiss a challenger’s lawsuit merely because that challenger failed to name the Board of Registration and Elections as the proper party defendant, as the failure to name the proper parties was an amendable defect, correctable by the parties or upon the court’s own motion. Brodie v. Champion, 281 Ga. 105, 636 S.E.2d 511, 2006 Ga. LEXIS 833 (2006). Equitable remedy could not be greater than if rights not violated by referendum vote. - Equitable relief
sought by the petitioners was denied because if the trial court had not erred, the referendum still would have passed and the petitioners would be part of the city; thus, the petitioners were asking the court to put them in a better position than they would be in if their rights had not been violated. Harris v. City of S. Fulton, 358 Ga. App. 788, 856 S.E.2d 361, 2021 Ga. App. LEXIS 132 (2021).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
14
cases (
6 in the last 5 years), 1993–2025 · leading case:
Miller v. Hodge, 905 S.E.2d 562 (Ga. 2024).
Miller v. Hodge, 905 S.E.2d 562 (Ga. 2024).
· cites it 20× “Based on this Court’s long-standing precedent setting out prudential reasons for refusing to invalidate an election where the challenger has not acted with dispatch to litigate his election contest claims under OCGA § 21-2-520 et seq. before a subsequent election takes place, we…”
Rhonda J. Martin v. Fulton Cnty. Bd. of Reg. & Elections, 307 Ga. 193 (Ga. 2019).
· cites it 4× “Martin (an “aggrieved elector”), Jeanne Dufort (an “aggrieved elector”), and Smythe DuVal (a voter and the Libertarian Party candidate for Secretary of State of Georgia in the November 2018 election) — filed a petition under OCGA § 21-2-520 et seq. contesting the election.”
Catoosa Cnty. Repub. Party v. Henry, 906 S.E.2d 750 (Ga. 2024).
· cites it 4× “This action is not an election contest under OCGA § 21-2-520 et seq. or a challenge to candidate qualifications brought under OCGA § 21-2-5 or OCGA § 21-2-6.”
Schmitz v. Barron, Dir., 863 S.E.2d 121 (Ga. 2021).
· cites it 6× “193, 194 (835 SE2d 245) (2019); see also OCGA § 21-2-520 et seq. “But an election contest is, by statutory design, an expedited proceeding — and one 2 that vests in trial courts broad authority to manage the proceeding, including to ‘proceed without delay to the hearing and…”
Allen v. Yost, 636 S.E.2d 517 (Ga. 2006).
· cites it 4× “Obviously, Jordan did not involve an election contest brought under OCGA § 21-2-520 et seq., which by its terms, allows a candidate “to contest the result of any primary or election,” OCGA § 21-2-520 (1).”
Brodie v. Champion, 636 S.E.2d 511 (Ga. 2006).
· cites it 4× “Specifically, she contends that since the Board was under contract with the City of Atlanta to act as superintendent, the Board was the proper party defendant pursuant to OCGA § 21-2-520 (2). 2 Instead of specifically naming the Board, Brodie named the Director of the Board,…”
Payne v. Chatman, 485 S.E.2d 723 (Ga. 1997).
· cites it 2× “Article 13 of the Georgia Election Code, OCGA § 21-2-520 et seq., embodies the controlling statutes which establish the procedures for contesting both primary and general elections, from commencement *875 of the action to final disposition in the appellate courts.”
City of Greenville v. Bray, 670 S.E.2d 98 (Ga. 2008).
· cites it 2× “102 ( 636 SE2d 517 ) (2006); OCGA §§ 21-2-520 (allowing candidate to “contest the result of any primary or election”); 21-2-503 (b) (“the election of [a] person to [a municipal office] may be contested in the manner provided by this chapter”) (emphasis supplied).”
Peterson v. Vie, 910 S.E.2d 191 (Ga. 2024).
· cites it 4× “See OCGA § 21-2-520 et seq. That post-primary petition did not seek 3 review of any administrative decision but was a direct challenge to the result of the primary election on the ground that Vie was ineligible for the office of probate court judge.”
Caplan v. Hattaway, 501 S.E.2d 195 (Ga. 1998).
· cites it 2× “Article 13 of the Georgia Election Code, OCGA § 21-2-520 et seq., sets forth the mechanisms for expediting an election contest in the trial and appellate courts.”
Flaherty v. Poythress, 432 S.E.2d 103 (Ga. 1993).
· cites it 5× “The potential defendants in an election contest are set forth in OCGA § 21-2-520: (2) “Defendant” means: (A) The person whose nomination or election is con *180 tested; (B) The person or persons whose eligibility to seek any nomination or office in a run-off primary or election…”
Bailey v. Colwell, 428 S.E.2d 570 (Ga. 1993).
· cites it 2× “After Colwell was certified the winner with a margin of 101 votes, Bailey filed a contest to the election (see OCGA § 21-2-520 et seq.), contending there were irregularities in the processing of absentee ballots.”
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.