Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448The election provided for in Code Section 36-82-1 shall be held at all the voting or election precincts within the limits of the county, municipal corporation, or political subdivision and shall be held by the same persons, in the same manner, and under the same rules and regulations that elections for officers of the county, municipal corporation, or political subdivision are held. The returns shall be made to the officers calling or ordering the election. Such officers, in the presence of and together with the several managers, who shall bring up the returns, shall consolidate the returns and declare the result.
(Ga. L. 1878-79, p. 40, § 2; Code 1882, § 508j; Civil Code 1895, § 378; Civil Code 1910, § 441; Code 1933, § 87-202.)
- When several distinct and independent propositions for the issuing of bonds by a municipality are submitted to the qualified voters of a town or city, provision should be made in the submission for a separate vote upon each. They cannot be lawfully combined and submitted to the voters as a single question. Rea v. City of LaFayette, 130 Ga. 771, 61 S.E. 707 (1908).
When contract entered into was submitted with other distinct propositions to the voters in an unauthorized manner, the contract may be declared void at the instance of the city. Americus Ry. & Light Co. v. Mayor of Americus, 136 Ga. 25, 70 S.E. 578 (1911).
- Question of establishing and maintaining school by local taxation and of authorizing town to incur a debt by issuing bonds for purpose of purchasing school property may be submitted to the qualified voters of the town at one and the same election, if the Act passed for this purpose be so framed as to accomplish this end. Brand v. Town of Lawrenceville, 104 Ga. 486, 30 S.E. 954 (1898).
Issue foreign to the matter of debt cannot be submitted to voters with a question of creating the debt, although the question as to the establishment of the enterprise for which the debt is to be incurred may be submitted with the question of incurring the debt. Cain v. Smith, 117 Ga. 902, 44 S.E. 5 (1903).
- When on the day succeeding the election the mayor and councilmen, duly assembled, called into the meeting the managers of the election and jointly with them canvassed the returns and declared the result of the election, and in pursuance of such Act the mayor and councilmen passed a resolution reciting the declaration of the result in the manner indicated, this was a sufficient compliance with this section in regard to a joint declaration of the result of such election, and, consequently, a copy of the resolution was admissible upon proceedings to validate the bonds. Sewell v. City of Tallapoosa, 145 Ga. 19, 88 S.E. 577 (1916) (see O.C.G.A. § 36-82-2).
- If there was some irregularity in the manner of registering a few voters, but it did not appear that such persons voted in the election, or that the persons were in fact not qualified to register, or that such irregularity affected the result, this furnished no cause for declaring the election void, and refusing to validate bonds authorized thereby. Brumby v. City of Marietta, 132 Ga. 408, 64 S.E. 321 (1909).
- Violation of directory provisions of a city charter (concerning influencing voters) by some persons and a failure to enforce them by the election managers did not operate to invalidate the entire bond election, it not appearing that the result would have been otherwise had there been a compliance with such provisions. Brumby v. City of Marietta, 132 Ga. 408, 64 S.E. 321 (1909).
- When the duly elected managers of a municipal election held in a city, for the purpose of determining whether or not bonds should be issued for municipal purposes, submitted the consolidated returns to the mayor and general council of such city, "and consolidated and the result declared," showing that the election resulted in favor of bonds, such consolidation was prima facie correct. Brown v. City of Atlanta, 152 Ga. 283, 109 S.E. 666 (1921).
Bond elections must be held in strict conformity with laws governing the elections. 1962 Op. Att'y Gen. p. 194.
- School bond election called by county board of education may be held concurrently with general election. 1965 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 65-9.
County superintendent of elections is proper person to conduct a school bond referendum and should certify the returns to the county board of education. 1985 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 85-18.
Bond referendum may be held on date of presidential preference primary, but the bond referendum should be placed on a separate ballot that voters need not request a party ballot to vote only in the referendum. 1975 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 75-132.
Ballots in school bond elections shall be furnished and election managers appointed by county board of education. 1950-51 Op. Att'y Gen. p. 44.
- 64 Am. Jur. 2d, Public Securities and Obligations, § 133 et seq.
- 64A C.J.S., Municipal Corporations, § 2145 et seq.
- Estoppel to deny validity of municipal bonds issued under an unconstitutional statute, 37 A.L.R. 1310.
No results found for Georgia Code 36-82-2.