Georgia Election Board Approves Controversial Hand-Count Rule: Key Details

A new rule enacted by the Georgia State Election Board mandates that all voting precincts in the state will now perform hand-counts of ballots to ensure the results align with machine counts before the certification deadline for election results. Approved on a recent Friday, this regulation has faced significant bipartisan backlash, with critics warning that it may inhibit timely results and create opportunities for misinformation campaigns surrounding election outcomes.

Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger expressed grave concerns regarding the hand-counting requirement, arguing that it poses risks to ballot security and can lead to dangerous delays. In a statement on August 15, he emphasized that swift reporting of results is vital for maintaining voter trust. “Delays in results create a vacuum that leads to misinformation and disinformation,” he warned.

Proponents of the rule assert that it will enhance public confidence in the accuracy of reported results, insisting that it does not alter the mandate for Georgia’s counties to certify their results by November 12. Board member Janice Johnston, one of the architects of the rule, stated during a public meeting that these measures will ensure a clear chain of custody on election night, preventing any possibility of missing ballots.

Former President Donald Trump has voiced support for the three Republican board members behind the new rule, dubbing them “pit bulls” for their efforts to secure electoral victory. His endorsement, combined with ongoing claims about the 2020 election results, has amplified scrutiny on the board’s recent actions.

While the board members have yet to respond to inquiries about the new rule, one member previously articulated her motivation to uphold integrity and maintain voter confidence in Georgia’s elections.

According to the hand-counting rule, three designated individuals in each precinct—about 2,400 across Georgia—are tasked with sorting and counting ballots in groups of 50. These hand-counts must match each other as well as the tallies produced by voting machines. If discrepancies arise, poll managers are required to rectify the inconsistencies whenever possible and document the corrections.

The stipulations concerning what happens if precincts fail to complete their hand-counts by the certification deadline remain vague. The new rule asserts only that the verification process “must be completed within the designated county certification period.” When asked for clarity on the consequences of missing the deadline, Raffensperger’s office reiterated that all counties are expected to comply with the November 12 deadline as mandated by state law.

Raffensperger himself faces a certification deadline for statewide results by November 22, followed by the requirement for Georgia’s governor to certify the state’s list of presidential electors. If these processes are not followed correctly, the situation may require judicial intervention to determine the electors submitted to Congress during the national counting event set for January 6.

Commentary from legal experts suggests that local lines may not experience delays due to the new rule. There are precedents from other states, such as Illinois, where hand-counts occurred without significant hindrances. Notably, the new regulation does not explicitly prevent counties in Georgia from reporting machine-counted results prior to completing the hand-counts.

Concerns over potential mistakes during the hand-counting procedure have been raised by various officials. Kim Wyman, a former Secretary of State for Washington, noted that errors during repetitive tasks, especially when performed under fatigue, are high. “People are very bad at repetitive tasks that are mundane,” she remarked, stressing the advantages of automated counting methods in modern elections.

Opposition to the hand-counting rule has been voiced by many election officials in Georgia. The Georgia Association of Voter Registration and Election Officials, comprising more than 500 members, previously urged board members to reconsider the rule. They warned in a recent letter that the requirement for hand-counting could delay election results, overwhelm staff, and undermine public trust in the electoral process.

Raffensperger reiterated his criticism of last-minute election changes as the vote date approaches, highlighting the pitfalls associated with increased complexities—indicating that more variables increase the likelihood of failure. Additionally, Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr indicated that the board might not have the legislative backing to impose such a rule, labeling it potentially illegal and cautioning against implementing new rules close to an election.

Support for the hand-counting rule was articulated by some members, including Julie Adams from Atlanta’s Fulton County Election Board, who compared it to the practice of double-checking cash at a bank. She likened the process to ensuring that both the machine count and manual count agree before confirming accuracy.

As discussions about the hand-counting requirement continue, questions remain regarding its legal viability. Analysts have suggested that a court ruling could invalidate the rule before the upcoming election. Initial challenges have already been filed by the Georgia Democratic Party and the Democratic National Committee against earlier changes made by the election board, suggesting a willingness to pursue further legal action if necessary.

Amidst these complexities, Democratic National Committee Chair Jaime Harrison condemned the new rule as an attempt to disrupt ballot counting and undermine election outcomes that may not align with the interests of those involved.

Source: USA Today