Court Opinion

ID: 9764433
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:21:41.033823+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:56.524688
License: Public Domain

MELTON, Justice,
dissenting.
This election case should be dismissed as moot, not considered for a second time. Our precedent is clear and unequivocal on this issue.
Statutes providing for election contests are premised on the recognition that election-related appeals must be timely considered. Jordan v. Cook, 277 Ga. 155, 156 (587 SE2d 52) (2003). In fact, OCGA § 21-2-528 allows a request for extraordinary relief from this Court even prior to the filing of a notice of appeal or the docketing of the record in an appeal from a final determination in an election contest. Consequently, the party challenging either a primary or general election has the legal mechanism to effect the threshold duty to act with dispatch. Jordan v. Cook, supra at 156. Certainly, there are instances in which last minute requests for extraordinary relief in election contests are unavoidable. But, this case is not one of them. The general election has been held[, and Scoggins and Brooks waited over two weeks before seeking last-minute emergency relief which this Court reviewed on its merits and denied]. This Court must conclude that the policy considerations underlying the mootness doctrine apply to this election challenge. Jordan v. Cook, supra at 156. This case does not involve a question of the constitutionality of any statute or the interpretation of a constitutional provision. Compare Poythress v. Moses, 250 Ga. 452 (298 SE2d 480) (1983). What is more, while the issues raised by [Scoggins and Brooks] might be capable of repetition in another case, such issues would be reviewable upon the timely and proper invocation of the applicable provisions of the Election Code. Coplan v. Hattaway, 269 Ga. 582, 583 (501 SE2d 195) (1998). Important policy considerations mandate that litigants should make every effort to dispose of election disputes with dispatch and that the courts should not interfere with the orderly process of elections after the general election has been held. Id.
McCreary v. Martin, 281 Ga. 668, 670 (642 SE2d 80) (2007).
In light of this precedent, this appeal should be dismissed as *30moot. Weeks after the election was complete, Scoggins and Brooks raised issues regarding the allegedly malfunctioning voting machines in their motion for expedited appeal and supersedeas. This Court reviewed the merits of the motion and denied it on January 8, 2010. At that point, we determined that the arguments raised did not throw the validity of the subject election into doubt and that no stay was necessary. If there had been any validity to the claims, we would have granted the motion for expedited appeal and supersedeas to resolve the matter as quickly and efficiently as possible.
Decided September 20, 2010
Reconsideration denied October 18, 2010.
Michael B. King, for appellant.
Insley & Race, Deana Simon-Johnson, Joseph R. Butter III, for appellee.
In contravention of this efficient procedure, Scoggins and Brooks now replicate their meritless arguments in this appeal, and the majority considers them again. By doing so, the majority creates a procedure which disrupts the finality of elections after they have occurred rather than protecting their certainty, contrary to both policy and precedent. In this case, the election occurred on November 3, 2009. This Court should not prolong doubt as to its validity by waiting almost a year later to give it finality in an opinion which merely revisits issues that were disposed of nine months earlier. This invites uncertainty as to the election, itself, and it unduly calls into doubt any acts or votes taken or made by the challenged elected official during the time that he or she has been in office. This is exactly the type of doubt and uncertainty which public policy abhors. Accordingly, I must respectfully dissent.
I am authorized to state that Justice Nahmias joins in this dissent.