Court Opinion

ID: 9585905
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:04:59.413017+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:24:16.759170
License: Public Domain

Smith, Justice,
dissenting.
“ ‘Election returns carry a presumption of validity. [Cit.]’ The burden of establishing an irregularity or illegality ‘sufficient to change or place in doubt the (election) result’ ... is on the party contesting the election. [Cit.] The contestant ‘must show that a sufficient number of electors voted illegally or were irregularly recorded in the contest being challenged to change or cast doubt on the election.’ [Cit.]” Walls v. Garrett, 247 Ga. 640, 646 (277 SE2d 903) (1981). See also Johnson v. Rheney, 245 Ga. 316 (264 SE2d 872) (1980).
Today’s majority opinion does not cite or attempt to distinguish these cases, and for good reason. They are indistinguishable from this appeal and should control its outcome. In Walls, supra, a case in which an election for school superintendent was decided by a 33-vote margin, the contestant made a showing that 68 absentee ballots were cast in an irregular manner. We held that this showing, standing alone, “was insufficient to establish the prima facie invalidity of those ballots and shift the burden to the defendants to show otherwise.” 247 Ga. at 646.
*263In contrast to Walls, appellant here has utterly failed to make any showing how the alleged irregularities affected the final vote tally. “The contestant ‘mustshowthat a sufficient number of electors voted illegally ... to change or cast doubt on the election.’ ” Id. (Emphasis supplied.) This appellant has failed to do, instead relying on speculation and what amounts to an “appearance of impropriety” in the election procedures. Under our statutes and cases, this was not enough to set aside the election.
I agree with the majority that the use of “check off’ personnel within 250 feet of a polling place violates OCGA § 21-2-408 (Code Ann. § 34-1310) and is per se an election irregularity. Unlike the majority, I decline to do away with the requirement that appellant prove that this irregularity was “sufficient to change or place in doubt the [election] results,” OCGA § 21-2-522 (Code Ann. § 34-1703), and I would affirm the judgment of the trial court, which correctly refused to set this election aside.
I am authorized to state that Justice Clarke and Justice Gregory join in this dissent.