What’s going on with the Georgia State Election Board?

Why a single rule change could inject chaos

On August 6, the Georgia State Election Board by a 3-2 vote adopted a rule change to define election certification as attesting “after reasonable inquiry” that the vote tabulation is complete and accurate. 

This single change poses a big problem: The new rule directly contradicts Georgia law, which defines election certification as a ministerial duty — meaning that the process is mandatory and does not allow any discretion for “inquiry.” 

As a result, this new rule only functions to inject confusion into the election process.

What is election certification?

Certification is the step that formally ends the counting and aggregating of ballots, also known as the canvass. 

In Georgia, elections superintendents certify at the county level, and the secretary of state and governor certify at the statewide level. Certification is a substantively small, straightforward act, but it is a crucial one both legally and symbolically, as it officially sends the county results up the chain of election officials and declares the winner of the election statewide. Georgia statutes and court decisions, including cases dating back to the early twentieth century, are clear on the purpose — and mandatory nature — of certification.

Adding an inquiry piece into certification is not only unlawful, but also unnecessary. There are already other steps in Georgia’s election process both before and after certification to ensure that ballots are counted lawfully and accurately. For example, there are recounts, audits, and requirements for transparency in vote tabulation centers. And a voter or candidate can dispute election results through an election contest after certification for any alleged fraud, irregularities, or error in counting the votes.

So why are three members of the Georgia State Board trying to mess with certification?

This move is part of the election denialism playbook: attack election processes to foment distrust and confusion about the system, so that you can declare the results illegitimate if your candidate loses. Since former President Trump’s attempt to sabotage the 2020 presidential results on January 6th, 2021, we’ve seen a larger trend of officials refusing to certify elections as a political statement. Protect Democracy has tracked over 20 examples of attempted certification refusals and delays at the local level since 2020: Some officials cite false claims of irregularities or fraud, and others simply cite partisan motivations. 

In fact, just a few days before the State Election Board adopted the rule, former president Donald Trump gave the three board members who voted to pass the rule a special shoutout by name at his rally, commending them for their work on the Board.

But these boardmembers have more planned: Next Monday, the Board is considering another proposal that further undermines the established certification process by imposing new responsibilities, like new complex reporting and investigation requirements and requiring a halt to vote counting in the precinct until they are completed — all unnecessary additions to existing safeguards outside the certification process and serving only to muddy the waters. 

Why does this matter? 

Even though state law protects the current certification process, this rule change seeking to turn certification into a discretionary action may lead to confusion or delays in finalizing election results, clouding Georgia’s carefully established electoral process. Bad actors may seize on the new rule change to attempt to delay or refuse certification. While any attempt to do so would be illegal under state law and ultimately fail, it could still impact trust in the process or results.

What happens now? 

Here’s the good news. This rule does not mean that Georgia officials will have the power to stop certification of this November’s election. 

Georgia’s law is clear that election officials must certify elections by the statutory deadlines. This rule does not change those deadlines. 

Any officials attempting to interfere with certification will be violating the law and exposing themselves to potential legal consequences. So, while this rule change may embolden bad actors seeking to undermine confidence in election results — which is a harm in itself — it is not a free pass for election officials to break the law.