Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization that focuses on reporting voting access and election administration issues across the United States. With a mission to provide accurate and timely information to the public, Votebeat offers a free national newsletter for those interested in staying informed about voting-related news.
Recently, new rules in Georgia have raised concerns among election watchdogs regarding the certification process. These rules, implemented by the Georgia State Election Board, have the potential to delay or even prevent the certification of election results, particularly if former President Donald Trump were to lose the state in November. The fear is that loyalists of Trump could abuse their authority to manipulate the certification process, casting doubt on the integrity of the election.
While experts believe that the system’s checks and balances will ultimately prevent any attempts to disrupt the certification process, there is still a concern that such efforts could create confusion and erode trust in the electoral system. Similar battles over certification are anticipated in other swing states as well, including Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, and Pennsylvania.
In response to the challenges faced during the 2020 presidential election, several states, including Arizona and Michigan, have taken steps to clarify that local officials cannot legally refuse to certify election results. They have also outlined potential consequences for those who attempt to do so, including criminal charges.
Despite these safeguards, experts remain wary of rule changes that could be used to justify delaying or refusing certification. The contentious certification processes not only undermine trust in elections but also fuel public anger and dissension.
Peter Bondi, the managing director of Informing Democracy, a nonpartisan election watchdog group, acknowledges the improvements made since 2020 but highlights the growing movement to manipulate the system. Bondi’s organization is closely monitoring states like Wisconsin and Michigan for any late changes that could impact the certification process.
Each state handles certification differently, with varying power dynamics between state and local officials. Votebeat’s journalists have been examining the certification processes in key states since 2020 to assess their readiness to enforce proper certification in the upcoming 2024 election.
In Georgia, recent rule changes by the State Election Board have sparked concerns about delayed certification. Democrats and election watchdogs view these changes as partisan efforts that could sow doubts about election integrity. The lack of clarity in the new rules and the additional investigative roles assigned to the board members have raised red flags among experts.
Similarly, in Arizona, an indictment of two Republican supervisors in Cochise County for delaying certification after the 2022 midterm election may influence other supervisors‘ decisions in the upcoming election. The pending criminal charges serve as a warning to those considering obstructing the certification process.
Pennsylvania has faced delays in certifying elections due to disputes with counties over the inclusion of certain ballots. These delays have raised concerns about the state potentially missing the new federal deadline for certifying presidential results. The Department of State is confident in meeting the certification deadline but remains prepared to take legal action against counties that refuse to certify.
Michigan has implemented safeguards after the 2020 election debacle to prevent future attempts to refuse certification. State law mandates that county canvassers certify elections based solely on voting totals, without considering concerns about potential wrongdoing. Despite these measures, challenges to certification persist, with recent incidents of canvassers initially refusing to certify election results.
Wisconsin has a clear legal framework that mandates county canvassing boards to certify election results. Any refusal to certify can be challenged in court, ensuring that the certification process remains intact. The state’s bipartisan composition of canvassing boards further strengthens the likelihood of certification being upheld.
In Texas, delays in certification have been attributed to requests for recounts of local races. While there have been no recent instances of officials refusing to certify election results, challenges related to recounts and election contests have created disruptions in finalizing outcomes. Despite these challenges, Texas remains committed to upholding the certification process.
Overall, the certification of election results plays a crucial role in maintaining the integrity and trustworthiness of the electoral system. As states continue to navigate potential obstacles and challenges in the certification process, it is essential to uphold the rule of law and ensure that elections are conducted fairly and transparently.