Election Deniers in Key States Gain New Power for 2024 Election

As local election officials in pivotal swing states gear up for the 2024 elections, concerns are mounting about their expanded authority and the potential for disruptions in the certification process, particularly in favor of Republican candidates. In the wake of former President Trump’s unfounded claims of a rigged 2020 election, these officials, traditionally responsible for clerical tasks, are now stepping into roles that could significantly impact the upcoming electoral landscape.

In Georgia, changes implemented by the State Election Board—a panel composed of three Republicans, one Democrat, and a nonpartisan chair—have sparked anxiety among voters and election officials alike. Recent rules requiring local boards to undertake thorough inquiries before certifying results could lead to chaos during the election process.

Similar situations are unfolding in Michigan and Nevada, where there have been attempts to delay the certification of election results. Arizona is witnessing a local county supervisor’s legal battle to mandate hand counting of ballots instead of relying on machines.

Uzoma Nkwonta, a partner at the Elias Law Group, voices concerns regarding a resurgence of organized election-denier groups that may have gleaned insights from their previous setbacks in 2020. “Going into this election, we see election deniers who are more organized and may have learned from their past defeats,” Nkwonta notes, underlining the heightened intensity of the current political landscape.

Georgia’s State Election Board has introduced a requirement for local boards to assess any discrepancies thoroughly prior to certifying results. This decision has drawn criticism, with some arguing it could lead to unwarranted delays in the electoral process.

In a 3-2 vote, the board ruled that local election officials must also commence investigations upon discovering any irregularities at the precinct level. The board is now responsible for determining how to resolve errors that may arise during this process.

Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a Republican, has expressed opposition to what he terms “11th-hour” changes imposed by the board. He has emphasized that failing to certify election results is unlawful, urging counties to meet their certification deadlines.

Trump has taken a different stance, praising the board’s Republican members as “pit bulls fighting for honesty, transparency and victory.” In a heated virtual meeting attended by around 850 participants, public comments were invited regarding the proposed rules, which met with opposition from election workers, voters, and officials from the Democratic Party of Georgia.

Attendees at the meeting expressed frustration, with some asserting that the board was misusing its power by revisiting issues already resolved. Allison Prendergast, a Gwinnett County voter, highlighted this concern, accusing the board of squandering taxpayer resources.

Kathy Boockvar, a former secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, argues that the widespread discontent among election officials is a critical indicator that the proposed changes may not be appropriate. She believes that a consensus among the state’s election officials against the alterations should raise red flags for the board.

With Election Day less than 75 days away, these new regulations add uncertainty to an election that has been meticulously planned over the past two years amidst ongoing concerns.

Former Washington Secretary of State Kim Wyman warns that these changes could have disruptive consequences, noting that they are being implemented without adequate funding or resources. This raises questions about their viability and effectiveness.

Support for the proposed rules has emerged from prominent conservative activists. Harry MacDougald, a lawyer involved in the Georgia election subversion case against Trump, spoke at the meeting, alongside Hans von Spakovsky, who authored federal election oversight guidelines for the Heritage Foundation. Von Spakovsky emphasized that the issue at hand transcends partisan politics, arguing it revolves around good governance.

Both Boockvar and Wyman have cautioned that the changes could introduce delays that might conflict with constitutional deadlines, raising potential issues regarding the timely certification of the elections.

Previous election cycles have already seen disputes over certifications in critical swing states. In Arizona, GOP officials in two counties attempted to halt the certification of their 2022 election results until they were compelled to do otherwise by court orders. County Supervisor Ron Gould expressed at the time that he certified the results “under duress.”

Now, as the 2024 elections loom, Gould is again advocating for a hand-count of ballots, facing legal challenges after the Arizona Attorney General declared it illegal. After a contentious board vote, Gould is pursuing legal action to push for his county’s hand count.

In Michigan, a rural county delayed the certification of a recall election against three incumbent Republicans, ultimately reaching a resolution after a tie forced a final decision.

Nevada also experienced certification issues last month, with Republican board members refusing to certify primary recounts until pressed by state authorities, resulting in an eventual concession.

The evolving situation regarding election certification raises significant concerns about the potential for turmoil in the upcoming electoral process as states grapple with these issues.

Source: Nexstar