SMITH v. LONG COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS AND REGISTRATION

Bobby Harrison Smith lost the June 2020 election for Probate Judge of Long County to Teresa Odum by nine votes. Smith challenged the results in a superior court, claiming 30 votes were improperly cast, grouping them into categories he called Blanks (incomplete paperwork), Outsiders (people he said lived outside the county), Movers (people who had allegedly relocated), Doubles (people who voted twice), and Unverifieds (voters whose ID checks were not documented). After a three-day trial, the judge found only seven of those votes were actually irregular, which was not enough to cast doubt on Odum's nine-vote win, and denied Smith's request for a new election. Smith appealed, arguing the trial court used the wrong legal standard and wrongly credited several voters as eligible. The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the trial record and found the lower court correctly counted the irregularities together against the nine-vote threshold, and that its factual findings about each voter's eligibility were supported by the evidence. The court affirmed the denial of a new election.

The court held that a candidate contesting an election must show that the number of illegal or irregular votes meets or exceeds the certified margin of victory, and because only seven votes were proven irregular against a nine-vote margin, the trial court correctly denied a new election.

The ruling reinforces that Georgia courts require concrete, cumulative proof of enough bad votes to change an election outcome before overturning results, protecting close local election results from being undone by minor paperwork errors or disputed residency claims.

Affirmed

1. The court explained that election results are presumed valid and the challenger bears the burden of proving irregularities or illegalities sufficient to change or cast doubt on the outcome, a high bar meant to respect voters' choices.
2. It clarified that Georgia recognizes two ways to challenge an election: showing enough individually invalid votes to exceed the margin of victory, or showing systemic irregularities so serious they undermine confidence in the result; here only the first approach was argued.
3. Reviewing the trial transcript, the court found the trial judge had properly added up all disputed votes together against the nine-vote margin, rather than requiring each category of challenged votes to independently exceed that margin.
4. Applying the deferential clearly-erroneous standard, the court found the trial judge was entitled to credit testimony that most absentee voters (the 'Blanks') completed their ballots properly despite paperwork mistakes, since Georgia law does not require automatic rejection of ballots for such technical flaws absent notice and a chance to fix them.
5. The court upheld the trial judge's finding that a voter named DeLoach remained a Long County resident despite claiming otherwise, since the judge was free to disbelieve his testimony given his late voter registration change and family ties to the challenger.
6. Because a certified property survey showed the challenged 'Outsiders' lived within Long County lines, the court found the trial judge's ruling that they were eligible voters was supported by the evidence and not clearly erroneous.

• election contest
• Long County probate judge
• absentee ballots
• voter residency
• new election petition