Stephen Jessup was a candidate for Sheriff of McIntosh County in the November 2, 2004 general election. He lost to the incumbent, Charles “Chunk” Jones, by 36 votes. Jessup subsequently filed a petition to contest the election, asserting that there were sufficient irregularities to place in doubt the election results. At a hearing on the matter, Jessup introduced voluminous records from the county boards of electors and registrars and presented the testimony of 37 witnesses who had voted at the November 2, 2004 general election. The trial court, after recognizing that the evidence conclusively established that the voting irregularities were not the result of any intentional behavior by the county board of registrars, ruled that Jessup had carried his burden of showing that the election was not held in substantial compliance with the law and that the result of the election for the office of county sheriff had been placed in doubt so as to require the invalidation of the November 2, 2004 election for that position. The trial court ordered that a new election be held on April 19, 2005, subject to a determination by the court that the errors that caused the invalidity of the November 2004 election had been corrected. Jones timely appealed the trial court’s order and this Court granted his motion to stay the second election scheduled for April 2005. Based on our review of the evidence adduced at the hearing, we find that the trial court committed factual and legal errors in its ruling. Accordingly, we reverse the order invalidating the November 2, 2004 election for Sheriff of McIntosh County. ” ‘It is presumed that election returns are valid, and the party contesting the election has the burden of showing an irregularity or illegality sufficient to change or place in doubt the result of the election.’ Cit.” Banker v. Cole , 278 Ga. 532, 535 4 SE2d 2004. In determining that 36 votes from the election had to be disregarded, the trial court combined six illegal ballots it found to exist, see Mead v. Sheffield , 278 Ga. 268 601 SE2d 99 2004, with substantial errors existing in the votes cast in the sheriff’s race by 30 electors Jessup presented to the court. We need not address whether the trial court properly credited Jessup with the six illegal ballots because we find that Jessup failed to prove substantial error in the votes cast by 30 of those 37 witnesses adduced at the hearing who voted at the November 2, 2004 general election.
The record reflects that Jessup failed to establish that three of the witnesses cast votes in the sheriff’s race.1 Their votes thus cannot be used to invalidate the election. See Mead , supra, 278 Ga. at 270; see also id. at 274-275 Hunstein, J., concurring specially burden on petitioner to show that a sufficient number of electors voted illegally in the contest being challenged to change or cast doubt on the election. Next, no error was shown to exist in the vote cast by witness Ophelia Grant.2 Of the remaining 33 witnesses, all of whom had cast votes in the sheriff’s race, Jessup’s evidence did reflect the presence of some irregularity in their ballots. However, not every irregularity will invalidate an elector’s vote. ” ‘Where the election is held in substantial compliance with the law, it should not be rendered void merely because of isolated failures to conform strictly with the law unless it appears that such failures changed the results of the election.’ Cit.” Banker v. Cole , supra, 278 Ga. at 533 2.
