ProPublica, a nonprofit newsroom known for investigating abuses of power, recently shed light on a concerning development in Georgia’s election process. The Georgia State Election Board passed a rule that could potentially make it easier to delay the certification of election results, a move that has raised red flags among election law experts and advocates for fair elections.
The initial proposal for this rule was rejected back in May by a majority of the board members, who cited concerns about its legality. However, a revised version of the rule was brought back for a vote three months later and passed by a narrow margin of 3-2. This revised rule, according to ProPublica’s review, did not address the legal issues raised by the experts and, in some cases, made them even worse.
The rule grants county officials overseeing election certification a significant amount of authority, allowing them to delay certification and potentially adjust vote counts if they suspect errors or fraud. This expansion of power has raised concerns about the integrity of the election process, especially in a state like Georgia, where the 2020 election results were closely contested.
The push for this rule was reportedly influenced by prominent election deniers and supported by former President Donald Trump. The Georgia Legislature has also made several changes to exert more control over the state’s election process, including replacing key officials with individuals who have questioned the legitimacy of past elections.
One of the key issues with the rule is its assertion that officials have the discretion to delay certification, despite longstanding legal precedent in Georgia that mandates certification regardless of any errors or fraud. The rule’s vague language and lack of clear definitions have raised concerns that it could be interpreted in a way that allows for manipulation of election results.
Election law experts have pointed out specific flaws in the rule, such as the removal of language emphasizing the mandatory duty to certify election results and the potential impact on the federal certification deadline. The timing of required meetings for investigating errors has also been criticized for potentially missing provisional ballots.
Despite these concerns, some board members who initially voted against the rule changed their stance and supported it in the August vote. The reasons for this change of heart were not clearly explained, raising questions about the motivations behind the decision.
Overall, the passage of this rule in Georgia highlights the ongoing challenges to election integrity and the need for vigilance in protecting the democratic process. As the 2024 election approaches, it is crucial to ensure that election rules and procedures are transparent, fair, and in compliance with existing laws to uphold the integrity of the electoral system.