O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 21-2-527 (2019)

Pronouncement of judgment; effect of finding of misconduct by poll officers; calling of second primary, election, or runoff by court upon finding of defects

✓ 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

(a) After hearing the allegations and evidence in the contest, the court shall declare as nominated, elected, or as eligible to compete in a run-off primary or election that qualified candidate who received the requisite number of votes and shall pronounce judgment accordingly; and the clerk of the superior court shall certify such determination to the proper authority. In the case of a contest involving a question submitted to electors at an election, the court shall pronounce judgment as to whether the same was approved or disapproved; and the clerk of the superior court shall certify such determination to the defendant. (b) When a defendant who has received the requisite number of votes for nomination, election, or to compete in a run-off primary or election is determined to be ineligible for the nomination or office sought, the court shall pronounce judgment declaring the primary or election invalid with regard to such nomination or office and shall call a second primary or election to fill such nomination or office and shall set the date for such second primary or election. (c) If misconduct is complained of on the part of the poll officers of any precinct, it shall not be held sufficient to set aside the contested result unless the rejection of the vote of such precinct would change such result. (d) Whenever the court trying a contest shall determine that the primary, election, or runoff is so defective as to the nomination, office, or eligibility in contest as to place in doubt the result of the entire primary, election, or runoff for such nomination, office, or eligibility, such court shall declare the primary, election, or runoff to be invalid with regard to such nomination, office, or eligibility and shall call for a second primary, election, or runoff to be conducted among all of the same candidates who participated in the primary, election, or runoff to fill such nomination or office which was declared invalid and shall set the date for such second primary, election, or runoff.

History

Code 1933, § 34-1708, enacted by Ga. L. 1964, Ex. Sess., p. 26, § 1; Ga. L. 1982, p. 1512, § 5; Ga. L. 1987, p. 34, § 1; Ga. L.

1987, p. 1360, § 19; Ga. L. 1991, p. 133, § 1; Ga. L. 1995, p. 1027, § 17; Ga. L. 1997, p. 590, § 40; Ga. L. 1998, p. 295, § 1.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Extent of jurisdiction over primary contest. - In a contest of primary election, the trial court’s jurisdiction is limited strictly to the primary, and the court is not

authorized to interfere with the holding of the subsequent general election. Smiley v. Gaskin, 115 Ga. App. 547, 154 S.E.2d 740, 1967 Ga. App. LEXIS 1166 (1967).

ELECTIONS & PRIMARIES

What contestant must show. - If the contestant can sustain charges, or enough of them to cast doubt upon whether the election was fairly and lawfully conducted, it should be voided and another held. If the contestant cannot, the election should stand. Nichols v. Acree, 112 Ga. App. 287, 145 S.E.2d 92, 1965 Ga. App. LEXIS 672 (1965). Insufficient evidence of irregularities and misconduct in election. - In an election contest under O.C.G.A. § 212-522 regarding a race for lieutenant governor, the small number of irregularities involved with the direct-recording electronic (DRE) voting system and the lack of evidence of misconduct by any election official was insufficient to overcome the winner’s margin of victory of 123,172 votes. Further, the trial court did not err in limiting discovery of the DRE machines or in denying the challengers’ motion for continuance and jury trial demand. Martin v. Fulton County Bd. of Registration & Elections, 307 Ga. 193, 835 S.E.2d 245, 2019 Ga. LEXIS 724 (2019). Persons who may compete in rerun. - The ordering of a rerun of a primary, after a contest in a race is sustained, is no reason for permitting other persons, who were not properly qualified to run in the contested primary, to qualify and compete in the rerun. Ingram v. Lott, 238 Ga. 513, 233 S.E.2d 770, 1977 Ga. LEXIS 1080 (1977).

Overruling of a general demurrer (since abolished) to an election contest proceeding is appealable. Blackburn v. Hall, 115 Ga. App. 235, 154 S.E.2d 392, 1967 Ga. App. LEXIS 1074 (1967). Improperly cast ballots must affect race in question. - Where contestant established that 131 absentee ballots were not properly cast in the general election, but the contestant did not establish that any of the improper absentee ballots were cast in the contested race, the contestant was unable to place in doubt the result of the election, and the trial court correctly found in favor of the winner as certified by the county superintendent of election. Bailey v. Colwell, 263 Ga. 111, 428 S.E.2d 570, 1993 Ga. LEXIS 400 (1993). Referendum lacked validity in attempted annexation. - Trial court did not retroactively redraw a city’s boundaries as the house bill incorporated the neighborhood into the city when the bill was signed into law on April 26, 2016; thus, the larger city’s effort to annex the neighborhood was untimely and invalid. As a result, the neighborhood was incorporated into the city before the referendum, was included in the referendum vote, and could only have left the city had the referendum failed. Harris v. City of S. Fulton, 358 Ga. App. 788, 856 S.E.2d 361, 2021 Ga. App. LEXIS 132 (2021).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Voters in rerun election. - When a rerun of an election is ordered by a judge of the superior court as a result of the sustaining of an election contest, the re-

run election should be limited to those voters who were qualified to vote in the original election. 1985 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 85-14.

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 26 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections, § 428. C.J.S. 29 C.J.S., Elections, § 542 et seq. ALR. Constitutionality, construction, and application of statute which declares a defeated candidate for nomination ineligible

as a candidate at general election, or prohibits printing his name on official ballot, 143 A.L.R. 603. Treatment of excess or illegal ballots when it is not known for which candidate or on which side of a proposition they were cast, 155 A.L.R. 677.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 11 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1986–2025 · leading case: Mead v. Sheffield, 601 S.E.2d 99 (Ga. 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Mead v. Sheffield, 601 S.E.2d 99 (Ga. 2004). · cites it 12× “OCGA § 21-2-527 (d) provides that, [w]henever the court trying a contest shall determine that the .”

Haynes v. Wells, 538 S.E.2d 430 (Ga. 2000). · cites it 4× “Although OCGA § 21-2-527 (b) provides that when a court determines that the winning candidate in an election contest is ineligible to hold office, the court generally must order a second primary or election to fill the office, the trial court in this matter concluded that a…”

Rhonda J. Martin v. Fulton Cnty. Bd. of Reg. & Elections, 307 Ga. 193 (Ga. 2019). · cites it 2× “8 percent average undervote between elections for governor and lieutenant governor over the previous four general elections — the difference constitutes an “[e]xtreme [u]ndervote” that places in doubt the result of the election for lieutenant governor and requires a new election…”

Howell v. Fears, 571 S.E.2d 392 (Ga. 2002). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 21-2-527 (d) provides: Whenever the court trying a contest shall determine that the primary, election, or runoff is so defective as to the nomination, office, or eligibility in contest as to place in doubt the result of the entire primary, election or runoff for such…”

Fuller v. Thomas, 667 S.E.2d 587 (Ga. 2008). · cites it 2× “See OCGA § 21-2-527 (a). Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.”

Caplan v. Hattaway, 501 S.E.2d 195 (Ga. 1998). · cites it 2× “However, OCGA § 21-2-527 provides for the trial court’s “pronouncement of judgment” in election contest cases and OCGA § 21-2-528 further provides that the appellant may apply for a stay or supersedeas “without regard to whether any notice of appeal has been filed or the record…”

Hammill v. Valentine, 373 S.E.2d 9 (Ga. 1988). · cites it 4× “In compliance with OCGA § 21-2-527 (d), the trial judge declared the election invalid and issued a call for another election to be conducted on October 25, 1988.”

Daniel v. Barrow, 348 S.E.2d 649 (Ga. 1986). · cites it 6× “The trial court was correct in relying on OCGA § 21-2-527 (d) and ordering a runoff between Daniel and Barrow who were obviously the only two candidates the discrepancies affected.”

Bailey v. Colwell, 428 S.E.2d 570 (Ga. 1993). · cites it 2× “election____” OCGA § 21-2-527 (d). [T]o cast doubt on an election it is only necessary to show (1) that electors voted in the particular contest being challenged and (2) a sufficient number of them were not qualified to vote so as to cast doubt on the election.”

Dean v. State of Georgia, 321 Ga. 836 (Ga. 2025). · cites it 8× “And Dean does not even ask to overturn those elections or call for new ones, see OCGA § 21-2-527, but merely for a judicial declaration about who was qualified to run in the primary.”

Mary Harris v. City of South Fulton (Ga. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2× “]” OCGA § 21-2-527 (a). Although Petitioners did not use the statutory procedure to advance the voting rights claims they make here, they nevertheless asked the trial court to set aside the result of the referendum election (or to pronounce judgment that the referendum was not…”

— 21-2-527(b) — 1 case

Haynes v. Wells, 538 S.E.2d 430 (Ga. 2000). “Although OCGA § 21-2-527 (b) provides that when a court determines that the winning candidate in an election contest is ineligible to hold office, the court generally must order a second primary or election to fill the office, the trial court in this matter concluded that a…”

— 21-2-527(d) — 1 case

Mead v. Sheffield, 601 S.E.2d 99 (Ga. 2004). “OCGA § 21-2-527 (d) provides that, [w]henever the court trying a contest shall determine that the .”

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.