Parham v. Stewart, 308 Ga. 170

March 20, 2018 Blythe mayoral special election: Phillip Stewart defeated Cynthia Parham 61–57; Parham requested and received a recount that confirmed the result.
Parham filed an election contest alleging illegal votes by nonresidents and vote-buying by Stewart’s campaign manager John Daniel Martin (who was later criminally charged related to the conduct).
At bench trial the court found two illegal votes (Walter Cook and Jacob Odum) but held those votes were insufficient to change or cast doubt on the outcome and validated the election.
Parham appealed, raising jurisdiction/mootness issues and challenging several specific voters (residency, vote-buying, mental capacity), the trial court’s handling of Martin’s Fifth Amendment invocations, and denial of her summary judgment motion.
The Georgia Supreme Court held it had jurisdiction to decide the appeal on the merits (overruling Kendall v. Delaney as to its broader rule), reviewed the trial court’s factual findings for clear error, and affirmed the trial court’s judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Parham)	Defendant's Argument (Stewart)	Held
Jurisdiction / Mootness	Appeal not moot; merits review appropriate despite no stay under OCGA §21-2-528	Appeal moot because Parham did not seek stay/supersedeas; reliance on Kendall	Court had jurisdiction; general-election contests can be decided on merits; Kendall overruled insofar as it suggested automatic mootness for failure to seek stay
Sufficiency of illegal votes to overturn result	Illegal votes (nonresidents, vote-buying, mentally incompetent voter) sufficient to change outcome or cast doubt	Trial court found only two illegal votes and other contested votes were valid; only two votes insufficient	Affirmed: appellant failed to show specific number of illegal votes sufficient to change or cast doubt on result
Fifth Amendment invocations / adverse inference / hostile witness	Court should draw irrebuttable adverse inferences from Martin’s refusals and compel answers / treat him as hostile	Martin entitled to assert privilege question-by-question; adverse inference discretionary and rebuttable; court properly refused to compel answers	Affirmed: trial court acted within discretion; adverse inference optional and rebuttable; refusal to compel and denial of hostile-witness treatment proper
Denial of pretrial summary judgment	Summary judgment should have been granted for Parham	Genuine issues of material fact existed; view evidence for nonmovant	Affirmed denial of summary judgment; factual disputes warranted trial

Scoggins v. Collins, 288 Ga. 26 (2010) (addressing mootness in election contests and limits on review)
Kendall v. Delaney, 282 Ga. 482 (2007) (prior rule on primary-election mootness — overruled insofar as applied to general-election challenges)
Martin v. Fulton County Bd. of Registration and Elections, 307 Ga. 193 (2019) (standard for proving illegal votes sufficient to change or cast doubt on result)
Dawkins-Haigler v. Anderson, 301 Ga. 27 (2017) (distinguishing primary and general election contest rules)
Holton v. Hollingsworth, 270 Ga. 591 (1999) (deference to trial court credibility findings on voter residency)
Middleton v. Smith, 273 Ga. 202 (2000) (election challenges cannot succeed on speculation or mere appearance of impropriety)
Hathcock v. Hathcock, 249 Ga. 74 (1981) (civil adverse inference may be drawn from Fifth Amendment invocation)
Axson v. Nat. Sur. Corp., 254 Ga. 248 (1985) (procedure for asserting and evaluating Fifth Amendment privilege in civil cases)
Page v. Page, 235 Ga. 131 (1975) (trial judge’s role in assessing invocation of privilege)