This is аn appeal from an action contesting a primary election that was brought by appellant Cuyler Payne against appellee Rich ard Chatman and others 1 following the primary election in Wilkinson County on July 9, 1996. We conclude that the election challenge is now moot and dismiss.
Appellant, an unsuccessful candidate for the Democratic nomination of Sheriff of Wilkinson County, filed this election contest challenging the election results of the July 9, 1996 Democratic primary for which appellee received a majority of the votes and was pronounced the winner on July 10,1996. Appellant filed his petition contesting the results of the primary in Wilkinson Superior Court on July 15, аnd on July 18 an order was entered appointing a judge of an adjoining judicial circuit to hear and decide the election challenge. Evidentiary hearings were conducted on July 23 and 25, 1996. By order dated September 5, 1996 and filed four days later, the trial court refused to invalidate the primary election and declared appellee the winner of the Democratic primary for Sheriff of Wilkinson County. 2 A notice of appeal was filed on September 10 and the appeal was docketed in this Court on November 6, one day after the November 5, 1996 general election. 3 Enumerations of error and a brief were filed by appellant on November 22, and appеllee filed his response brief and a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot on December 16, 1996. Oral argument was requested on November 22, 1996 and the case was assigned to the February 11, 1997 oral argument calendar. At no time рrior to the general election did appellant file a motion to expedite or advance consideration of his case or seek a stay of the general election or certification of its results. On December 18, over one month after the general election, appellant filed a motion for supersedeas and stay seeking to stay the January 1, 1997 swearing in of appellee as Wilkinson County Sheriff. The motion was deniеd on December 27, 1996.
Article 13 of the Georgia Election Code, OCGA § 21-2-520 et seq., embodies the controlling statutes which establish the procedures for contesting both primary and general elections, from commencement
of thе action to final disposition in the appellate courts. This legislation provides an important procedural framework for the prompt resolution of election contests, including initiation
Although the Election Code is formulated to provide appellate courts with the authority to entertain applicаtions for stays and supersedeas in primary election challenges for the purpose of protecting the interests of litigants challenging election results, it does not
guarantee
that a primary election contest will be expedited on appeal or offer a remedy where a primary election contest has not been resolved before the general election. The established rule in Georgia is that a primary election contest becomes moot after the general election has taken place.
Ward v. Evans,
A review of the record in this case demonstrates that the main responsibility for the untimely consideration of this appeal lies with appellant because he failed to utilize every available means to protect his rights and resolve the election dispute prior to the time all of the issues relating to the primary election had become moot. Although appellant could have instantaneously sought a supersedeas and stay from this Court pursuant to the expedited procedure of the Election Code after the trial cоurt entered its September 5, 1996 order, appellant neglected to request an expedited disposition and neglected in timely fashion to seek extraordinary relief from this Court. Therefore, unlike the
Appellant maintains that even though the issue is moot we should consider the merits of the appeal in order to best serve the interests of the electors of Wilkinson County. The “mootness doctrine” which recognizes that certain technically moot questions merit review because the error is capable of repetition and yet evades review, is recognized in this State, although it has never bеen applied to election cases. See
Chastain v. Baker,
There are many important policy considerations which compel us to adhere to the rule 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. It is imperative that “time remains for appeals and new elections if necessary before a suсceeding election renders the issues moot,”
Taggart v. Phillips,
In this case, appellant ignored the procedures set forth in OCGA § 21-2-528 and this Court’s practice of granting expedited considеration of election cases and instead followed the general rules of appellate procedure in seeking to resolve the issues in his primary election dispute. Because appellant did not seеk to advance his case, his election challenge was docketed and considered after the general election had occurred and after it was possible for this Court to grant any effective relief. Having decided that we will continue to follow the general rule that a primary election contest becomes moot if not fully determined prior to the general election, appellee’s motion to dismiss is hereby granted. Sеe Brooks v. Braziel, supra.
Appeal dismissed as moot.
Notes
In addition to Chatman, other named appellees in the case are the third Democratic candidate, Mike Goss; acting appointed election superintendents, Dr. Fararie Smalley and Juanita Williams; Registrar Raymond Bacon; and clerk of the probate court, Kim Hall. None of these individuals has filed a response brief in this Court.
Three candidates cоmpeted in the July 9, 1996 race for Sheriff of Wilkinson County. They were appellant Payne, appellee Chatman and Goss. The complaint alleged that irregularities existed and fraudulent acts had been committed in the primary sufficient to change or place the results of the primary in doubt. Although not pertinent to our opinion, the trial court reviewed the number of votes each candidate received, concluded that appellant hаd failed to meet his burden of proving sufficient irregularities to cast the outcome of the election in doubt and declared appellee the winner.
In the general election held on November 5, appelleе faced Republican Party candidate Rufus Mixon. Appellee received a majority of the votes against his Republican challenger and was certified the winner by the election superintendent on November 5, 1996.
The United States Supreme Court and courts in other jurisdictions have also held that primary election contests must be fully decided prior to a general election and that a challenge by a candidate is moot where the general election was over by the time the case was heard. See
Brockington v. Rhodes,