Lee Norris Jordan, a candidate for the district five seat on the Randolph County Board of Education, brought an action before the Probate Court/Superintendent of Elections of Randolph County challenging the qualifications of his opposing candidate, incumbent Henry Cook, for the special primary election held in November 2002. The superintendent of elections ruled that Cook was qualified for the district five seat. Jordan’s appeal to superior court was dismissed on the ground that his delay in filing the appeal until after the election rendered the appeal moot. We agree and reaffirm that litigants in election contests have a duty to expedite resolution of the dispute before the general election is held. The primary election for the county board of education seat was originally scheduled for August 2002 but rescheduled for November 5, 2002, following a challenge in the Federal District Court to the General Assembly’s redistricting legislation and the subsequent approval of the new districts by the U.S. Department of Justice.1 Incumbent Cook and challenger Jordan both qualified as candidates for the seat. On October 18, Jordan challenged Cook’s qualifications on the ground that Cook no longer lived within district five. On October 28, following an evidentiary hearing, the superintendent of elections entered a decision concluding that Cook was qualified for the district five seat.2 Cook won the election on November 5 and two days later, Jordan appealed the decision of the superintendent to superior court. The superior court granted Cook’s motion to dismiss finding that Jordan’s appeal was mooted by the election.
The election statutes that establish procedures for contesting elections are based on an underlying policy that election-related appeals must be timely considered. The justification for this policy is to prevent incurring unnecessary expenses in holding more than one election, to assure the finality of election results, and to settle challenges to a candidate’s qualifications prior to the time that voters exercise their constitutional right to vote. Payne v. Chatman , 267 Ga. 873 485 SE2d 723 1997. Thus, we have held that the party challenging either a primary or general election “should make every effort to dispose of election disputes with dispatch and that the courts should not interfere with the orderly process of elections after the general election has been held.” Id. at 877. See Caplan v. Hattaway , 269 Ga. 582 501 SE2d 195 1998.
