SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA

Case No. S22A0207; S22M0203

October 8, 2021

The Honorable Supreme Court met pursuant to adjournment.

The following order was passed:

JULIUS HALL v. JODI HAWKS

Appellant filed his direct appeal in Case No. S22A0207 seeking

review of a superior court order affirming the decision of the
Municipal Superintendent of Elections of the City of Port
Wentworth (“Superintendent”). Specifically, after holding an
administrative hearing on the matter, the Superintendent
concluded that, under Article II, Section II, Paragraph III of the
Georgia Constitution, Appellant was not qualified to run as a
candidate for the office of Mayor of Port Wentworth in the November
2, 2021 municipal election. See OCGA § 21-2-6 (a)-(b). The
Superintendent’s decision was affirmed by the Superior Court of
Chatham County. In addition to the notice of appeal, Appellant filed
in this Court a “Motion for Expedited Appeal and Motion for
Stay/Supersedeas” of the decisions of the Superintendent and the
superior court. See Case No. S22M0203.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case. See
Cook v. Board of Registrars of Randolph County, 291 Ga. 67, 70-71
(727 SE2d 478) (2012) (observing that pre-election challenges to a
candidate’s qualifications “naturally qualify as ‘cases of election
contest’ within this Court’s jurisdiction,” and citing cases where we
have decided such challenges). But Appellant was required to follow
the discretionary application procedures inasmuch as he is
appealing from a decision of a superior court reviewing an
adjudicative decision of an administrative agency. See OCGA § 21-
2-6 (e) (party aggrieved by superior court’s review of
superintendent’s decision as to candidate’s qualifications may
obtain appellate court review “as provided by law”); OCGA § 5-6-35
(a) (1) (requiring an application to appeal from decisions of the
superior courts reviewing decisions of local administrative
agencies); Selke v. Carson, 295 Ga. 628 (759 SE2d 853) (2014)
(application required for appeal where underlying subject matter
concerns ruling made by an administrative department). Because
the Superintendent’s administrative decision was adjudicative in
nature, Appellant was required to pursue this appeal under the
discretionary application procedures set forth in OCGA § 5-6-35 (b).
Accordingly, his direct appeal in S22A0207 is dismissed, and his
“Motion for Expedited Appeal and Motion for Stay/Supersedeas” in
S22M0203 is dismissed as moot.

All the Justices concur.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta

I certify that the above is a true extract from the

minutes of the Supreme Court of Georgia.
Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto
affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk