dissenting. I differ with the majority opinion for two reasons:
The appeal in this case is from the overruling of a general demurrer to a petition seeking to contest the result of a political election. Under the Election Code (Ga. L. 1964, Ex. Sess. p. 26, Code Ann. § 34-1709) it is provided only: “An appeal from the final determination of the court may be taken within 10 days from the rendition thereof to the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals as in other civil cases.” The word “other” of course refers to the creation of the new statutory right of appeal to an appellate judicial tribunal, not to the time of appeal, since no other cases, either civil or criminal, were subject to a 10-day appeal cut-off period at the time the Act was passed, and no right of appeal from an election contest decided by a superior court judge or in any other manner existed prior to 1964 when the Election Code was passed, the decision of an election contest being a political and not a judicial proceeding. Johnson v. Jackson, 99 Ga. 389 (27 SE 734); Nichols v. Faircloth, 95 Ga. App. 641 (98 SE2d 416) and citations. The Johnson case held an Act allowing the judge of the superior court to decide such contests was not violative of the separation of powers provisions of the Constitution because “the person to whom these duties were assigned was not required to deal with the subject in his capacity as judge of the superior court.” (Emphasis supplied.) When statutory provision is made for contesting an election it “is not an action at law or a suit in equity. It is a special statutory proceeding, conferring power which must be exercised within the limits and by the method prescribed by the statute.” Harris v. Sheffield, 128 Ga. 299, 303 (57 SE 305). Thus, the only right of review given by statute (and none other exists) is the right to appeal within 10 days and after final determination.
The Appellate Practice Act (Ga. L. 1965, p. 18 et seq.) does not purport to create any new rights of appeal in non-judicial controversies where appeals were not previously allowed. A *252political contest may by statute receive a judicial review by statutory enactment, but it was not within the purview of the Appellate Practice Act to enlarge the scope of review of political decisions, that Act revising as it did the procedure necessary for, and not the right to, judicial review. Accordingly, the language in Undercofler v. Grantham Transfer Co., 222 Ga. 654, supra, as follows: “The legislature in excepting the three classes of cases (mandamus, quo warranto and writ of prohibition) from the operation of Section 1 (a) (2) of the 1965 Appellate Practice Act intended it to apply in all other cases” necessarily refers to cases in which a right of review of the case itself existed prior to the Act. As to these political questions it existed prior to the Act only after final determination of all the issues, and then only within a 10-day period. To hold otherwise would be to say that present Code Ann. § 6-701 repeals by implication Code Ann. § 34-1709 and such a holding would result in the impossibility of an appeal whatsoever from a decision in an election contest since Code Ann. § 34-1709 is the only authorization for an appeal to be had in a political contest. It follows that nothing in UndercoVer conflicts with what is here held. The judgment overruling a general demurrer in this case is not reviewable, and the appeal being premature, appellees’ motion to dismiss should be granted.
The majority in determining the question of jurisdiction indirectly concludes that the election contest procedure authorized by the Georgia Election Code of 1964, § 34-1701 et seq., is consistent with and does not conflict with Article I, Sec. V, of the Constitution of the United States. The Georgia Court of Appeals does not have authority or jurisdiction on any question or in any case in which the constitutionality of any law of the State of Georgia is drawn in question. Code Ann. § 2-3704 (Par. IV, Sec. II, Art. VI; Constitution of the State of Georgia of 1945.) The two cases cited, Wickersham v. State Election Board (Okla.) 357 P2d 421, and Odegard v. Olson, 264 Minn. 439 (119 NW2d 717) are opinions written by the Supreme Courts of Oklahoma and Minnesota. Further, the question of lack of jurisdiction, or the issue of the constitutionality of the contest procedure of the Georgia Election *253Code, supra, has not been raised in the trial court. I concur that the trial court did have jurisdiction of the subject matter, but not for the reasons advanced.
The crux of this entire case depends upon the answer to the following question: with regard to the requirements applicable to voting machines and vote-recorders (votomatics) found in Subparagraph (b) of Code Ann. '§§ 34-1206 and 34-1220 respectively which states: “(b) It shall permit each elector, at other than primaries, to vote a straight party or body ticket in one operation, and, in one operation, to vote for all the candidates of one party or body for presidential electors, and, in one operation, to vote for all the candidates of one party or body for every office to be voted for, except those offices as to which he votes for individual candidates” (emphasis supplied), where ah elector pursuant to the above Sub-paragraph (b) votes a straight ticket for all the candidates of one party or political body and in the same operation votes for individual candidates of another party with respect to one or more offices do the votes cast, regarding the offices as to which the elector votes for individual candidates constitute (a) a “split-ticket vote” which should be counted only for the individual candidate specifically voted for, or (b) a vote for both candidates for the particular office which would result in an “over-vote,” the counting of which is specifically precluded by Code Ann. § 34-1220 (e) as amended, (Ga. L. 1965, p. 226.) ?
It is my view that the statute is crystal clear in providing that an elector voting under vote-recorder and voting machine requirements may split his vote by punching the straight ticket of one party, and then punch opposite the name of one or more candidates of the opposing party as to the offices for which he wanted to vote for opposing candidates, there is no provision contained in Code Ann. § 34-1220(e), as amended, supra, which prohibits split voting between parties. This last cited section precludes only “the counting of votes for any candidate, or upon any question, for whom or upon which an elector is not entitled to vote [limits elector to appropriate questions and candidates] and shall preclude the counting of votes for more persons for any office than he is entitled to vote for [prohibits *254the counting of votes when elector votes for two candidates for the same office] and shall preclude the counting of votes for any candidate for the same office or upon any question more than once [limits counting of vote].” Georgia’s provision Subparagraph (b) of Code Ann. §§ 34-1206 and 34-1220 permitting split-ticket votes is supported by the following foreign cases: Pires v. Bracken, 412 Ill. 416, 419 (107 NE2d 706) (in which the court said that) “The specific marking controls the general, and the ballot cannot be counted for the candidate of the party whose circle is marked, but, as to that office, only for the opposing candidate whose name is marked by a cross in the square” (emphasis supplied); Opening of Ballot Box in Third Election Dist. of Forty-First Ward, 328 Pa. 535 (195 A 890); State ex rel. Hammond v. Hatfield, 137 W. Va. 407 (71 SE2d 807); State ex rel. Bumgardner v. Mills, 132 W. Va. 580 (53 SE2d 416); State ex rel. Robeson v. Clark, 28 Wash. 2d 276 (182 P2d 68); Denny v. Pratt, 105 Conn. 256 (135 A 40).
It is true that these latter six foreign cases cited provide for split-ticket voting by paper ballot. With regard to the votomatic area, Georgia has apparently adopted the Pennsylvania rule clearly providing for split-ticket voting. The Georgia General Assembly has not yet adopted the Pennsylvania rule as to split-ticket voting when voting by paper ballots. I heartily concur with Judge Eberhardt’s expression that “it is in the interest of both the candidate and the voter to have a rule of uniformity so that voters moving from a paper ballot area into a votomatic area, or vice versa, or a voter from a votomatic area who casts an absentee ballot, will not be confronted with the confusing and illogical change.” However, where the legislature has spelled out a separate rule applicable to casting of ballots by vote recorder or votomatic as opposed to- casting votes by paper ballot, then the question of providing a rule of uniformity addresses itself to the Georgia legislature and not to this court.
The majority opinion outlines in detail the instructions found in § 34-1314 (c) and related Code sections. It is conceded that such instructions are specifically applicable only to the paper *255ballot voting procedure. Certainly the many provisions “make a mark . . . make a check mark . . . any erasure . . . any ballot marked by anything but pen or pencil shall be void and not counted” would have no bearing on this case. In fact if this section did apply to votomatic balloting, the latter provision (with emphasis added) would in effect repeal and nullify the use of voting machines and vote-recorders in this state.
Great emphasis is placed on the publicity in the newspapers, over the radio and television as to the manner in which an elector may vote a split ticket. Assuming arguendo that the publicized instructions are applicable to split-ticket paper ballot voting, assuming further that almost fifty percent of the total state electors are in urban areas that use voting machines, vote-recorders (votomatics), and assuming that one of our parties consistently has over 100 candidates running for as many offices, and that another growing political party in this state will have 50 to 100 candidates in a few years opposing the first party candidates, the majority opinion is saying to the urban area electors using voting machines and vote-recorders, that if you desire to vote for all candidates of your party except one, you should not and cannot put a cross in the circle or indicated space at the head of a party ticket, or punch the space on the votomatic ticket, but should proceed to split the ticket by marking proper marks or punches in indicated spaces opposite the name of every candidate for whom you wished to vote or for whom you wished to write in a vote. This would create a chasm of chaos, confusion and long voting lines of waiting and delay would exist if all split-ticket urban voting were performed in this manner. An elector has the right to vote in this manner, and he further has the right to cast a speedy ballot by voting one time for all party candidates while simultaneously in one operation casting individual votes for candidates of a particular office.
For this court to classify and hold that a “split-vote” is an “over-vote” and therefore could not be counted, in the light of Subparagraph (b), supra, would constitute, in my opinion, judicial usurpation of a legislative prerogative.
*256A cardinal rule for the construction of statutes is that no part is to be so construed as to render it meaningless. Scott v. Mayor &. of Mount Airy, 186 Ga. 652 (198 SE 693); Humthlett v. Reeves, 211 Ga. 210 (85 SE2d 25). Code Ann. §§ 34-1206 and 34-1220 contain three provisions, specifying that each elector at general elections shall have provision for voting in one operation for: (a) a straight party ticket; (b) all candidates of one party for presidential electors, and (c) all candidates of one party except those offices as to which he votes for individual candidates.
If the italicized clause is deleted from (c) supra, or is declared meaningless, then (c) has exactly the same meaning as (a). Either this language must be presumed to have no meaning, or it means that it is permissible for the voter in one operation to vote for all candidates of one party, and then, by voting individually, to split his ticket without the ballot being counted as an over-vote. Thus, where the voter “in one operation” votes for a long list of candidates of a single party, and then, as to some of these “he votes for individual candidates,” the legislature has in effect given a statutory intent to the voter to have the individual candidate take precedence over the party candidate on his ballot.
The trial court did not err in overruling the general demurrer to the petition as to the issue discussed above and as to the issues outlined in Division 2 (c) of the majority opinion. Judgment of the lower court should be affirmed.
I am authorized to state that Chief Judge Felton concurs in Divisions 1 and 2 (b) of this dissent.