In RE: DECEMBER 6, 2022 GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT (Three Cases)

Three Georgia voters, Sarah Thompson, Kevin Muldowney, and Edward T. Metz, each filed their own lawsuit on election day in Bulloch, Cobb, and Fulton counties, claiming the electronic ballot marking devices used in the runoff for a U.S. Senate seat did not meet Georgia's legal requirements. They asked the courts to declare the runoff elections in their counties void and to order referenda on switching voting machines. None of the three complaints named a county election board or any other party as a defendant, and none of the counties were ever formally served with the lawsuits. Each trial court dismissed the complaint or denied relief, pointing out it had no one to order to do anything. The voters appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia, which agreed with the trial courts: without a named and served defendant, a court has no power to grant the kind of relief the voters wanted, so the rulings against them stand.

A trial court cannot grant relief against a party that was never named in the complaint and never served with process or otherwise submitted to the court's jurisdiction; because none of the appellants named or served any defendant, the trial courts correctly found they lacked authority to void the elections or order the requested relief.

The ruling reinforces that Georgians who want to challenge election results or procedures in court must formally name and serve a defendant, such as a county election board, or their case cannot proceed no matter how serious the underlying claim about voting equipment.

Judgments affirmed

1. The court explained a basic rule of civil procedure: for a court to order relief against someone, that person or entity must be named as a party in the lawsuit and must either voluntarily appear or be brought into the case through proper service of process.
2. Applying that rule, the court noted that none of the three complaints named a county election board or any other person or entity as a defendant, so the court clerks never even issued summonses to notify anyone of the lawsuits.
3. Because no defendant was ever named or served, the trial courts had no party before them capable of being ordered to do anything, such as declaring an election void or holding a referendum on voting machines.
4. The court also noted that the voters pointed to no legal authority letting the Supreme Court of Georgia override the trial courts' refusal to grant this kind of extraordinary relief without a proper defendant in the case.
5. Based on this failure to name or serve any defendant, the court concluded each trial court acted correctly in dismissing the complaints or denying the requested relief.

• 2022 Senate runoff
• ballot marking devices
• election contest
• service of process
• voting machines