RHONDA J. MARTIN v. FULTON COUNTY BOARD OF REGISTRATION AND ELECTIONS
307 Ga. 193
| Ga. | 2019Background
- In the Nov. 6, 2018 Georgia general election Geoff Duncan beat Sarah Riggs Amico for lieutenant governor by 123,172 votes (3,780,304 ballots counted in that race). Petitioners alleged DRE voting-machine defects and a large “undervote” (159,024 fewer votes in the LG race than the governor race, ≈4%).
- Petitioners (individual Georgia electors and the Coalition for Good Governance) filed an election-contest petition alleging machine malfunction, sought forensic inspection of DRE internal memory and the GEMS database, and sought a new election or relief under OCGA § 21-2-520 et seq.
- The trial court granted limited discovery (certain GEMS reports and inspection in post-election mode of selected DRE units), barred copying/imaging of DRE internal memory, denied continuance, denied broader inspection/compel, struck the jury demand, and held a two-day bench trial on Jan. 17–18, 2019.
- Petitioners presented lay and expert testimony about machine errors, reports of isolated malfunctions, and statistical comparisons (claiming historical average undervote ≈0.8% vs 4% in 2018). They argued systemic DRE defects caused thousands of uncounted or uncast votes.
- The trial court granted defendants’ motion for involuntary dismissal, finding petitioners failed to show illegal/irregular votes sufficient to change or place in doubt the result (court referenced an ~32,000 figure but that finding was unsupported); Georgia Supreme Court affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasonableness of discovery period / denial of continuance | Short pretrial window and complex computer evidence made discovery time unreasonable; continuance required to permit forensic analysis | Election Code requires expedited handling; trial court has broad discretion to limit discovery and deny continuance | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; timeline reasonable given Election Code’s expedited scheme and notice provided |
| Access to GEMS database and DRE internal memory (motion to compel) | Full GEMS database and full imaging/copying of DRE internal memory were necessary for forensic proof of systemic malfunction | Full access would expose sensitive security info; court can limit discovery for security/protective reasons and prescribe procedure | Affirmed: trial court permissibly limited scope (permitted certain reports and constrained inspection); no abuse of discretion |
| Sufficiency of evidence to overturn election (undervote/systemic irregularity theory) | The large undervote vs historical trend (claimed 0.8% expected) plus reported machine errors established systemic defects that place result in doubt and require new election | Petitioners offered speculation and limited examples; no proof of illegal votes or causal link showing enough votes to overcome 123,172 margin | Affirmed: petitioners failed to meet burden to show illegal/irregular votes or systemic misconduct sufficient to change or place result in doubt |
| Jury trial demand | Petitioners demanded jury trial for factual issues | Defendants: election-contest statute requires court determination whether issues are jury-triable under other state law; no statutory right shown | Affirmed: demand denied; no right to jury trial shown under applicable law |
Key Cases Cited
- Hunt v. Crawford, 270 Ga. 7 (Georgia 1998) (election-setting-aside is a drastic remedy; challenger bears burden to clearly establish irregularity and doubt)
- Meade v. Williamson, 293 Ga. 142 (Georgia 2013) (distinguishes discrete-illegal-vote paradigm from systemic-irregularity paradigm; requires more than speculation)
- Fuller v. Thomas, 284 Ga. 397 (Georgia 2008) (recited a mathematical formula for votes needed to place result in doubt—court here disclaims rigid application of that formula to systemic claims)
- McCranie v. Mullis, 267 Ga. 416 (Georgia 1996) (precedent discussing required proof of sufficient illegal/irregular ballots)
- Stiles v. Earnest, 252 Ga. 260 (Georgia 1984) (example where systemic irregularity supported ordering a new election)
- Middleton v. Smith, 273 Ga. 202 (Georgia 2000) (reversed new-election order where alleged systemic misconduct was speculative)
- Head v. Williams, 269 Ga. 894 (Georgia 1998) (Election Code requires prompt setting of hearing dates; short notice compatible with reasonable notice in election contests)
- McIntosh County Bd. of Elections v. Deverger, 282 Ga. 566 (Georgia 2007) (election-contest standards for showing sufficient illegal/rejected votes)
- Banker v. Cole, 278 Ga. 532 (Georgia 2004) (reaffirms presumption of validity in election returns and challenger’s burden)