George Albert Lewis appeals from the denial of his timely petition to contest the election results of the November 6, 2007 mayoral election in the City of Santa Claus, in which Lewis lost to the incumbent mayor, appellee Bernard Harden. Finding no error, we affirm. 1. Lewis contends that irregularities regarding the “untrained uncertified” election superintendent necessitate a new election. The evidence adduced before the trial court established that Santa Claus had no municipal superintendent, see OCGA § 21-2-70.1 a, because the November 6, 2007 election was the first contested election in Santa Claus in over 20 years. Although its city clerk, appellee Mary Juanita O’Day, would otherwise have served in that position, see id. at b, she had been unable to attend the necessary training course and thus was not qualified. Id. at c.1 Arrangements were made for Calloway, a qualified person from Tattnall County, to serve as election superintendent without compensation. The poll manager, who actually conducted the election, and all of the poll officers were properly qualified. See OCGA § 21-2-90 et seq. The poll manager testified that both Calloway and the election superintendent for Toombs County were accessible on voting day for any questions that arose and that, in her experience, election superintendents are never on site at the polling precinct during elections. She testified that on the evening of the election after all the votes had been counted, she realized that the document for reporting the municipal returns seemed to require the signature of the election superintendent. Because Calloway was not physically present, the poll manager consulted with O’Day, who had not earlier been involved in the election. O’Day telephoned Calloway and then discussed the matter with the Secretary of State’s office. Pursuant to its instructions, O’Day signed the document herself.2
OCGA § 21-2-522 1 authorizes an election contest on the ground of “misconduct, fraud, or irregularity by any . . . election official or officials sufficient to change or place in doubt the result.” ” ‘Election returns carry a presumption of validity. Cit..’ Cit. The burden of establishing an irregularity or illegality ‘sufficient to change or place in doubt the election result’ cit. is on the party contesting the election. Cit.” Walls v. Garrett , 247 Ga. 640, 646 1 277 SE2d 903 1981. The trial court found that there was no evidence to support the claim that the actions of either the designated election superintendent or O’Day changed or placed in doubt the results of the election and “a trial court’s findings in an election contest will not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous. Cit.’ Cit.” McIntosh County Board of Elections v. Deverger , 282 Ga. 566, 567 2 a 651 SE2d 671 2007. Because our review of the evidence establishes that Lewis failed to carry his burden of proof, the trial court did not clearly err in its ruling.
