Gathercoal v. Purcell

Supreme Court of Georgia

Gathercoal v. Purcell

517 S.E.2d 780, 271 Ga. 26, 99 Fulton County D. Rep. 1755, 1999 Ga. LEXIS 373

Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided May 3, 1999·No. S99A0050; S99X0053; S99X0054·Published

Opinion

Fletcher, Presiding Justice.

Alan Gathercoal appeals the denial of his petition for mandamus to have his name placed on the ballot as an independent candidate for district 2 of the Gwinnett County Board of Commissioners. Because the elections board correctly disqualified signatures that appeared on pages notarized by a circulator, we affirm.

1. The elections board found that 3,344 of the 4,511 signatures on Gathercoal’s petition were on pages that were notarized by a circulator in violation of Poppell v. Lanier.1 Gathercoal contends that Poppell is distinguishable because the disqualified notary circulated a page of the petition after she had notarized other pages. However, Poppell makes no such distinction based upon the time at which the notary circulated the petition.

[27]*27Decided May 3, 1999. Peevy & Lancaster, Donn M. Peevy, Gregory W. Lancaster, Barnes, Browning, Tanksley & Casurella, George T. Smith, for Gathercoal. Chandler & Britt, Walter M. Britt, Deborah F. Weiss, Troutman Sanders, Charles F. Palmer, Norman L. Underwood, for Purcell and Muise. Emily M. Lewy, amicus curiae.

2. We recently reaffirmed Poppell in Lewy v. Beazley.2 The rule set forth in Poppell is clear and easily administered. Therefore, we decline the invitation to overrule it.

3. The errors raised by the cross-appeals are moot and need not be addressed.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Fletcher, Presiding Justice.

Alan Gathercoal appeals the denial of his petition for mandamus to have his name placed on the ballot as an independent candidate for district 2 of the Gwinnett County Board of Commissioners. Because the elections board correctly disqualified signatures that appeared on pages notarized by a circulator, we affirm.

1. The elections board found that 3,344 of the 4,511 signatures on Gathercoal’s petition were on pages that were notarized by a circulator in violation of Poppell v. Lanier.1 Gathercoal contends that Poppell is distinguishable because the disqualified notary circulated a page of the petition after she had notarized other pages. However, Poppell makes no such distinction based upon the time at which the notary circulated the petition.

[27]*27Decided May 3, 1999. Peevy & Lancaster, Donn M. Peevy, Gregory W. Lancaster, Barnes, Browning, Tanksley & Casurella, George T. Smith, for Gathercoal. Chandler & Britt, Walter M. Britt, Deborah F. Weiss, Troutman Sanders, Charles F. Palmer, Norman L. Underwood, for Purcell and Muise. Emily M. Lewy, amicus curiae.

2. We recently reaffirmed Poppell in Lewy v. Beazley.2 The rule set forth in Poppell is clear and easily administered. Therefore, we decline the invitation to overrule it.

3. The errors raised by the cross-appeals are moot and need not be addressed.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Gathercoal v. Purcell, 517 S.E.2d 780, 271 Ga. 26, 99 Fulton County D. Rep. 1755, 1999 Ga. LEXIS 373 (Ga. 1999).

Pincite

517 S.E.2d 780 (Gathercoal v. Purcell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related