O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 21-4-18 (2019)

Application to court to compel election superintendent to comply with chapter; jurisdiction and venue of actions against election superintendent

✓ 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) If the election superintendent fails to comply with this chapter, any elector may apply, within ten days after such refusal, to the superior court for a writ of mandamus to compel the election superintendent to perform his or her official duties. If the court finds that the election superintendent has not complied with this chapter, the court shall issue an order for the election superintendent to comply. (b) An action against an election superintendent shall be filed in the superior court of the county of such election superintendent, except that an action against the Secretary of State shall be filed in the Superior Court of Fulton County.

History

Code 1981, § 21-4-18, enacted by Ga. L. 1989, p. 1721, § 1.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Editor’s notes. - In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions decided prior to the 1989 revision of this chapter including former § 21-4-17 are included in the annotations for this Code section. Mandamus action to compel probate judge to verify signatures. - When plaintiffs filed a mandamus action to force a probate judge to properly verify the signatures on a recall petition and notwithstanding a reference to O.C.G.A. § 21-2-521, a section on contesting results of primaries or elections, and the inclusion of prayers for equitable relief, the complaint stated a claim under former

O.C.G.A. § 21-4-17 (see now O.C.G.A. § 21-4-18), and its dismissal was error. Howell v. Tidwell, 256 Ga. 647, 352 S.E.2d 372, 1987 Ga. LEXIS 560 (1987) (decided under former § 21-4-17). Mandamus not appropriate remedy. - Suit for equitable relief, not an action for mandamus, was proper remedy for elected officials contending that election superintendent’s actual past performance of duties was in noncompliance with the Recall Act, O.C.G.A. § 21-4-1 et seq., and would lead to scheduling an unauthorized recall election. Hunter v. George, 265 Ga. 573, 458 S.E.2d 830, 1995 Ga. LEXIS 524 (1995).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1995–2025 · leading case: Hunter v. George, 458 S.E.2d 830 (Ga. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hunter v. George, 458 S.E.2d 830 (Ga. 1995). · cites it 2× “According to them, Councilmen’s legal remedy was an action for mandamus as authorized by OCGA § 21-4-18 (a). That statute provides: If the election superintendent fails to comply with [the Recall Act], any elector may apply, within ten days after such refusal, to the superior…”
Nabilah Islam Parkes v. Brian P. Kemp (Ga. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 21-4-18 (a). In another context, the Legislature has provided that “any person, firm, corporation, or other entity” may bring an action to enforce the provisions of both the Open Records Act and the Open Meetings Act.”
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.