Constitución del Estado de Georgia

Artículo IX. COUNTIES AND MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS · Artículo IX. COUNTIES AND MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS · Sección I. COUNTIES

Art. IX, Sec. I, Para. II. Number of counties limited; county boundaries and county sites; county consolidation.

Vigente

Actualizado hasta: Including Acts of the 2025 Regular Session of the General Assembly.

Una disposición constitucional que se muestra como vigente está vigente tal como está impresa en el volumen. Una decisión judicial puede hacer inaplicable una disposición impresa sin cambiar el volumen, y el volumen no registra eso.

El texto siguiente es la ley tal como la imprime el estado, en inglés.

(a)
There shall not be more than 159 counties in this state.#
(b)
The metes and bounds of the several counties and the county sites shall remain as prescribed by law on June 30, 1983, unless changed under the operation of a general law.#
(c)
The General Assembly may provide by law for the consolidation of two or more counties into one or the division of a county and the merger of portions thereof into other counties under such terms and conditions as it may prescribe; but no such consolidation, division, or merger shall become effective unless approved by a majority of the qualified voters voting thereon in each of the counties proposed to be consolidated, divided, or merged.#

Las notas siguientes se imprimen con la sección, pero no son ley promulgada (O.C.G.A. § 1-1-1(c)). Se muestran aparte del texto.

Cross references

Enumeration of counties, § 36-1-1. Changing county boundaries, § 36-3-1. Boundary line disputes, § 36-3-20. Change of county site, § 36-4-1 et seq. Creation, dissolution, merger, or consolidation of municipalities, § 36-35-2.

Otras notas (13 entradas, tal como están impresas)

1976 Constitution.: Art. IX, Sec. I, Paras. I-V, XI.
Facts insufficient to void Act creating new county.: The facts that: (1) county line not fixed according to agreement of citizens; or (2) election of county officers by Act was void; or (3) that change of county line affected school districts were not sufficient to declare an Act creating a new county void. Clements v. Powell, 155 Ga. 278, 116 S.E. 624 (1923). Act creating county valid. Moore v. Smith, 140 Ga. 854, 79 S.E. 1116 (1913); Fordham v. Sikes, 141 Ga. 469, 81 S.E. 208 (1914). Boundary Changes Act to change county lines cannot result in leaving a county without a county site. County of DeKalb v. City of Atlanta, 132 Ga. 727, 65 S.E. 72 (1909).
Valid change of county line.: This paragraph was not violated by former Ga. L. 1909, p. 152, permitting change of county lines within the limits of incorporated towns and cities. Manson v. City of College Park, 131 Ga. 429, 62 S.E. 278 (1908) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. IX, Sec. I, Para. II). Ga. L. 1911, p. 183, authorizing tion, was void. Worth County v. Crisp County, 139 Ga. 117, 76 S.E. 747 (1912). Valid Acts changing county lines, see County of DeKalb v. City of Atlanta, 132 Ga. 727, 65 S.E. 72 (1909); Aultman v. Hodge, 147 Ga. 626, 95 S.E. 297 (1918). Procedure
change of county lines between contiguous counties of a certain popula-Editor’s notes.: In light of the similarity of the provisions, decisions under former Ga. Const. 1976, Art. IX, Sec. I, Para. V and antecedent provisions, which provided that no county site could be changed or removed except upon two-thirds vote of the county electorate and majority vote of the General Assembly, are included in the annotations for this paragraph.
Purpose of paragraph and sections.: — This paragraph, and former Civil Code 1910, §§ 468-471 (see now O.C.G.A. §§ 36-3-1 through 36-3-4), enacted in pursuance thereof, were designated to prevent the transfer of a few acres, or residences from one county to another by legislative Act. Aultman v. Hodge, 147 Ga. 626, 95 S.E. 297 (1918); Aultman v. Hodge, 150 Ga. 370, 104 S.E. 1 (1920) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. IX, Sec. I, Para. II). Does not apply to administrative
facilities.: This paragraph relates to change or removal from such site of the courthouse, courts, and the places of transacting official business of the county, but not to administrative facilities such as jails. Jackson v. Gasses, 230 Ga. 712, 198 S.E.2d 657 (1973) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. IX, Sec. I, Para. II). Amount of land to be transferred is within the discretion of the officers, subject to the limitations to this paragraph. Aultman v. Hodge, 147 Ga. 626, 95 S.E. 297 (1918) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. IX, Sec. I, Para. II). Work of changing county lines is dicial in nature. Aultman v. Hodge, 147 Ga. 626, 95 S.E. 297 (1918).
political or legislative rather than ju-Paragraph violated.: This paragraph was violated by an Act which provided that the assent of two-thirds of the qualified voters of the county shall be necessary to authorize the removal of a county site. Wells v. Ragsdale, 102 Ga. 53, 29 S.E. 165 (1897) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. IX, Sec. I, Para. II).
Paragraph not violated.: Ga. L. 1923, p. 218, which removed the site of Camden County, did not violate this paragraph. Bachlott v. Buie, 158 Ga. 705, 124 S.E. 339 (1924); Clements v. Bostwick, 158 Ga. 906, 124 S.E. 719 (1924) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. IX, Sec. I, Para. II). Ga. L. 1923, p. 216, which provided for removal of a named county site from one town to another one, did not violate this paragraph. Orr v. James, 159 Ga. 237, 125 S.E. 468 (1924) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. IX, Sec. I, Para. II). tion favored a change before the Act was passed. Cutcher v. Crawford, 105 Ga. 180, 31 S.E. 139 (1898); Barrett v. Ashmore, 137 Ga. 545, 73 S.E. 825 (1912); Vornberg v. Dunn, 143 Ga. 111, 84 S.E. 370 (1915). County board of commissioners is authorized to locate administrative offices and facilities outside county seat. Brewster v. Houston County, 235 Ga. 68, 218 S.E.2d 748 (1975). There is no statutory prohibition fices in the county outside of the county site so long as the sheriff complies with the statute which requires the sheriff to maintain an office in the county site. Brewster v. Houston County, 235 Ga. 68, 218 S.E.2d 748 (1975). sue must be conducted in the county site and citizens of the county must be afforded an opportunity to be heard at the county site as to any issue of county business. Brewster v. Houston County, 235 Ga. 68, 218 S.E.2d 748 (1975). Consolidation, Merger, Division
Presumption arises that the elecagainst the sheriff maintaining of-Deliberation and voting on any is-Editor’s notes.: Some of the cases appearing under this heading were decided under the 1976 Constitution (Art. IX, Sec. I, Para. XI) and antecedent provisions, which set out the procedure for consolidation, merger, or division of counties.
Voting requirements for merger.: This paragraph of the Constitution provides that any county may be merged with a contiguous county by a two-thirds (now majority) vote of qualified electors of the merged county, voting at an election held for that purpose; it does not require that voters of a county in which another county is merged should ratify the act of merger. Hines v. Etheridge, 173 Ga. 870, 162 S.E. 113 (1931) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. IX, Sec. I, Para. II). Provisions of the Constitution of this state must be construed together and as a whole; and must be so construed as not to render one provision void because of another provision; in construing Ga. Const. 1976, Art. VI, Sec. XVI, Para. I (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, Sec. I, Para. VII), and this paragraph, their meaning is that the legislature cannot abolish constitutional courts and constitutional officers where the purpose of the Act is to accomplish this alone; but, where the Constitution grants to the legislature the power to merge contiguous counties, which is done in conformity to the power, and where the merging Act has the incidental effect of superseding certain courts existing in the merged county by those of the county into which the merged county is absorbed, and of abolishing certain offices held under general provisions of the Constitution in the county absorbed, such merger Act is not unconstitutional and void because it is in conflict with the provision of the Constitution inhibiting the abolition of constitutional courts and officers. Hines v. Etheridge, 173 Ga. 870, 162 S.E. 113 (1931) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. IX, Sec. I, Para. II).
Merger of counties effective notwithstanding incidental effect of superseding, constitutional courts.: It is the duty of the court to construe the constitutional provision providing for the merger of counties as conferring, by necessary implication, upon the legislature the power of enacting legislation for the merging of contiguous counties, although the incidental effect of such Acts may be to Consolidation, Merger, Division (Cont’d) supersede constitutional courts and abolish constitutional officers existing in the counties merged at the dates when the merger Acts become effective. Hines v. Etheridge, 173 Ga. 870, 162 S.E. 113 (1931).
Meetings of boards of county comcounties.: The General Assembly may not alter boundaries of insolvent counties without approval of a majority of the voters in the counties affected. 1986 Op. Att’y. Gen. No. U86-3.
Am. Jur. 2d.: 56 Am. Jur. 2d, Municipal Corporations, Counties, and Other Political Subdivisions, § 160 et seq.

Leer la página oficial (el PDF del estado, abierto en la página de la que se leyó este texto).

Actualizado hasta: Including Acts of the 2025 Regular Session of the General Assembly.

Texto leído de 2ga-const-(v2)-2016-pdf.pdf, Volumen V2, edición 2016, páginas 1315 a 1318; acción de fusión: carried; SHA-256 del archivo 1b27199d8655.