Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 21-2-6 | Car Wreck Lawyer

Link to State of Georgia Official Statute 2018 Georgia Code Annotated (sourced from legal.resource.org)
O.C.G.A. 21-2-6 Case Law from Google Scholar Amendments to OCGA 21-2-6

TITLE 21 ELECTIONS

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

ARTICLE 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS

21-2-6. Qualifications of candidates for county and municipal office; determination of qualifications.

  1. Every candidate for county office who is certified by the county executive committee of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy, and every candidate for municipal office who is certified by a municipal executive committee of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy, shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.
  2. The superintendent upon his or her own motion may challenge the qualifications of any candidate referred to in subsection (a) of this Code section at any time prior to the election of such candidate. Within two weeks after the deadline for qualifying, any elector who is eligible to vote for any such candidate may challenge the qualifications of the candidate by filing a written complaint with the superintendent giving the reasons why the elector believes the candidate is not qualified to seek and hold the public office for which the candidate is offering. Upon his or her own motion or upon a challenge being filed, the superintendent shall notify the candidate in writing that his or her qualifications are being challenged and the reasons therefor and shall advise the candidate that he or she is setting a hearing on the matter and shall inform the candidate of the date, time, and place of the hearing.
  3. The superintendent shall determine if the candidate is qualified to seek and hold the public office for which such candidate is offering. If the superintendent determines that the candidate is not qualified, the superintendent shall withhold the name of the candidate from the ballot or strike such candidate's name from the ballot if the ballots have been printed. If there is insufficient time to strike the candidate's name or reprint the ballots, a prominent notice shall be placed at each affected polling place advising voters of the disqualification of the candidate and all votes cast for such candidate shall be void and shall not be counted.
  4. In the event that a candidate pays his or her qualifying fee with a check that is subsequently returned for insufficient funds, the superintendent shall automatically find that such candidate has not met the qualifications for holding the office being sought, unless the bank, credit union, or other financial institution returning the check certifies in writing by an officer's or director's oath that the bank, credit union, or financial institution erred in returning the check.
  5. The elector filing the challenge or the candidate challenged shall have the right to appeal the decision of the superintendent by filing a petition in the superior court of the county in which the candidate resides within ten days after the entry of the final decision by the superintendent. The filing of the petition shall not itself stay the decision of the superintendent; however, the reviewing court may order a stay upon appropriate terms for good cause shown. As soon as possible after service of the petition, the superintendent shall transmit the original or a certified copy of the entire record of the proceedings under review to the reviewing court. The review shall be conducted by the court without a jury and shall be confined to the record. The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the superintendent as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court may affirm the decision or remand the case for further proceedings. The court may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions of the superintendent are:
    1. In violation of the Constitution or laws of this state;
    2. In excess of the statutory authority of the superintendent;
    3. Made upon unlawful procedures;
    4. Affected by other error of law;
    5. Clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; or
    6. Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by an abuse of discretion or a clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.

      An aggrieved party may obtain a review of any final judgment of the superior court by the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, as provided by law.

(Code 1933, § 34-406, enacted by Ga. L. 1980, p. 312, § 2; Ga. L. 1983, p. 884, § 6-3; Ga. L. 1986, p. 32, § 1; Ga. L. 1987, p. 1360, § 2; Ga. L. 1989, p. 900, § 2; Ga. L. 1993, p. 617, § 2; Ga. L. 1998, p. 295, § 1; Ga. L. 2001, p. 230, § 1.)

Cross references.

- Persons not eligible to hold office, Ga. Const. 1983, Art. II, Sec. II, Para. III.

County officers, Ga. Const. 1983, Art. IX, Sec. I, Para. III.

Appointment of county school superintendents, § 20-2-101.

Eligibility and qualifications of persons for public office generally, Ch. 2, T. 45.

Law reviews.

- For article, "Local Government Law," see 53 Mercer L. Rev. 389 (2001). For note on the 2001 amendment to this Code section, see 18 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 114 (2001).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Reviewing court to consider factors before superintendent.

- Superior court, by relying upon 10 U.S.C. § 973, exceeded its authority as a reviewing court, since that section is not part of the Hatch Act, U.S.C. § 7324 et seq., which was one of the grounds for the complaint, and was not relied upon when the case was before the superintendent of elections. Jolley v. Grantham, 206 Ga. App. 100, 424 S.E.2d 362 (1992), overruled on other grounds, Hogan v. State, 316 Ga. App. 708, 730 S.E.2d 178 (2012).

County residents' challenge to a school board candidate's residency qualification under O.C.G.A. § 45-2-1(1) and Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VIII, Sec. V, Para. II, was barred by res judicata because another challenger had raised the same challenge, and the challenge had been resolved against the challenger by the county's board of elections. Lilly v. Heard, 295 Ga. 399, 761 S.E.2d 46 (2014).

Appeal of election dispute moot.

- Where a candidate did not protect the candidate's rights and resolve an election dispute prior to an election and delayed in filing an appeal by an elections superintendent in favor of an incumbent until after the election was over, the candidate's appeal was moot. Jordan v. Cook, 277 Ga. 155, 587 S.E.2d 52 (2003).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

- Constitutionality of candidate participation provisions for primary elections, 121 A.L.R.5th 1.

Cases Citing Georgia Code 21-2-6 From Courtlistener.com

Total Results: 11

Peterson v. Vie

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2024-12-10

Snippet: days allowed by statute. See OCGA §§ 5-6- 35 (d); 21-2-6 (e). Accordingly, the delay in consideration and

CATOOSA COUNTY REPUBLICAN PARTY v. HENRY

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2024-09-17

Snippet: superintendent’s decision on such a challenge. See OCGA § 21-2-6 (b), (e). This action is not an election contest

SCOTT K. CAMP v. RYAN CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2022-09-30

Snippet: through which the challenge was asserted — OCGA § 21-2-6 — covers only

Lilly v. Heard

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2014-06-30

Snippet: pre-election challenge to her candidacy, see OCGA § 21-2-6, contending that she was ineligible to run for

Lilly v. Heard

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2014-06-30

Citation: 295 Ga. 399, 761 S.E.2d 46, 2014 WL 2924952, 2014 Ga. LEXIS 536

Snippet: pre-election challenge to her candidacy, see OCGA § 21-2-6, contending that she was ineligible to run for

Burgess v. Liberty County Board of Elections

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2012-10-29

Citation: 291 Ga. 802, 733 S.E.2d 774, 2012 Fulton County D. Rep. 3326, 2012 Ga. LEXIS 843

Snippet: Pursuant to the election contest provisions of OCGA § 21-2-6 (b), several eligible fourth district voters filed

Cook v. BD. OF REGISTRARS OF RANDOLPH CTY.

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2012-05-07

Citation: 727 S.E.2d 478, 291 Ga. 67, 2012 Fulton County D. Rep. 1578, 2012 WL 1571610, 2012 Ga. LEXIS 449

Snippet: OCGA § 21-2-5, and Code Ann. § 34-406, now OCGA § 21-2-6, expressly authorizing such pre-election challenges

Allen v. Yost

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2006-10-16

Citation: 636 S.E.2d 517, 281 Ga. 102, 2006 Fulton County D. Rep. 3174, 2006 Ga. LEXIS 836

Snippet: election, or to exercise his right under OCGA § 21-2-6(e) to seek a stay of the election, we held that

In Re Inquiry Concerning Judge Robertson

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2004-04-19

Citation: 596 S.E.2d 2, 277 Ga. 831, 2004 Fulton County D. Rep. 1400, 2004 Ga. LEXIS 314

Snippet: Constitution (eligibility for public office); OCGA §§ 21-2-6 and 21-2-8 (candidate eligibility and qualifications)

Jordan v. Cook

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2003-10-06

Citation: 587 S.E.2d 52, 277 Ga. 155, 2003 Fulton County D. Rep. 2971, 2003 Ga. LEXIS 835

Snippet: seek a stay of the election pursuant to OCGA § 21-2-6(e) (reviewing court may order a stay in a challenge

In Re Motion of Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1999-09-13

Citation: 519 S.E.2d 909, 271 Ga. 436, 99 Fulton County D. Rep. 3401, 27 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2309, 1999 Ga. LEXIS 669

Snippet: 369 S.E.2d 755 (1988). [4] USCR 21.1. [5] USCR 21.2. [6] USCR 21. [7] Long, 258 Ga. at 413, 369 S.E