An unsuccessful candidate for city commissioner filed a petition to contest the election. He alleged that the city used an outdated district map, which caused votes to be cast in the wrong district. The Superior Court granted the petition and vacated the election. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the successful candidate argued that the “new” map was not applicable because it was never filed with the Superior Court or Secretary of State. Thus, the Court ruled that petitioner’s basis for attacking the election was unsupported, and the Superior Court should have upheld the election.
Because the conditions set by OCGA § 36-35-5 for making the charter amendment here effective were not satisfied, the 2011 election map for the City of Waycross was not effective at the time of the 2023 election at issue.5 And with that premise gone, Strickland’s challenge fails. The challenge relied on the assumption that the 2011 map was in effect and thus should have been used for the 2023 election. That assumption about the map was the sole basis for Strickland’s contention, and the trial court’s conclusion, that enough votes were cast in the wrong districts to call the election results into doubt. Because the 2011 map was not effective at the time of the election, there is now no basis in the record for that conclusion, so this election challenge fails.
