The Resolution of Election Disputes: Legal Principles that Control Election Challenges the nomination with a majority of the votes cast. Since neither Mr. Jones nor Mr. Norris got a majority of the votes cast, the trial court held that a run-off election had to be held to determine whom the nominee would be. The Georgia Supreme Court looked to state statutes for guidance but found that the only statute regarding candidates who have withdrawn dealt with elections where paper ballots were used; vote recorders had been used in the election for school superintendent from which Mr. Hulvey withdrew. The supreme court decided it could use the paper ballot statute as a guide, finding that there was essentially no difference between a paper ballot marked with a pencil and a cardboard ballot marked with a punch. That statute said, “[i]n primaries, votes cast for candidates who have died, withdrawn, or been disqualified shall be void and shall not be counted.” Given that direction, the supreme court said, …the votes cast for Larry Hulvey were void and should not have been counted. The judgment of the trial court is therefore reversed. At 707 (emphasis is the court’s). This decision is opposite from the majority view that says that the votes cast for a candidate who died, withdrew or was ineligible should be included when determining the outcome of the election. What led the Georgia Supreme Court in Jones to ignore the majority view? The answer lies in Chapter 1, Section B (Statutory procedures must be strictly followed) of this book. In Jones, there was a statute directly on point that commanded that the votes for Larry Hulvey not be included in the vote totals. So they were not, and the trial court’s decision to the contrary was reversed. This conclusion was anticipated by Thompson v. Stone, 53 S.E.2d 458 (Ga. 1949), which was cited in Tellez as one of the cases that follows the “American Rule,” which is the majority rule, that the votes cast for an ineligible candidate should be included when determining the outcome of the election. There, 43 years before Jones, the Georgia Supreme Court laid the foundation for Jones even while it said that it would follow the “American Rule.” The American doctrine, supported by an undoubted preponderance of authority, is that though the candidate receiving the highest number of votes because of his ineligibility fail of an election [sic], yet the votes cast for him are so far effectual as to prevent the election of other candidates, and there is no election at all [citing cases from Wisconsin, California, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi and Pennsylvania]. Unless the votes for an ineligible person are expressly declared to be void, the effect of such person receiving a majority of the votes cast is, according to the weight of the American authority and the reason of the matter, that a new election must be held, and is not to give the office to the qualified person having the next highest number of votes. At 462 (emphasis supplied). 118