In a decision that has sent shockwaves through Georgia’s political landscape, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Thomas Cox struck down seven key election rules established by the Georgia State Election Board (SEB). The ruling, delivered just weeks before the 2024 election, nullifies several measures designed to enhance election security, citing them as “illegal, unconstitutional, and void.”
The SEB rules, which were put in place in response to concerns over election integrity, required measures such as hand-counting ballots, signature verification for absentee ballots, and video surveillance of ballot drop boxes. These rules were introduced to ensure transparency and security in the election process, particularly around absentee ballots. However, Judge Cox’s ruling has effectively dismantled these efforts, sparking controversy and raising concerns about the potential impact on the upcoming election.
The case was brought forward by Eternal Vigilance Action, Inc., a conservative group, along with two Republicans: former state representative Scot Turner and Chatham County election board member James Hall. The plaintiffs argued that the SEB had overstepped its legal authority by implementing rules that exceeded the boundaries set by Georgia’s Election Code. They contended that these rules not only violated state law but also created unnecessary barriers to the voting process.
Judge Cox agreed with the plaintiffs, ruling that the SEB lacked the authority to enforce these new rules. In his decision, Cox stated that the SEB rules were “unsupported by Georgia’s Election Code” and were in conflict with both the state and U.S. constitutions.
The ruling specifically invalidated seven critical SEB rules. These included:
- Certification of Election Returns
SEB Rule 183-1-12-.02(c.2) required election superintendents to “attest, after reasonable inquiry” that election tabulations were accurate before certifying the results. The court ruled this went beyond the scope of Georgia’s Election Code. - Access to Election Documentation
SEB Rule 183-1-12-.12 expanded access to election-related documents for individual county board members before certification. This rule was also deemed to exceed the SEB’s authority. - Absentee Ballot Delivery Protocol
One of the more controversial rules, SEB Rule 183-1-14-.02(18), required voters to provide a photo ID and signature verification when dropping off absentee ballots. Proponents argued that this was a necessary step to prevent fraud, while critics claimed it imposed undue burdens on voters. - Surveillance of Ballot Drop Boxes
SEB Rule 183-1-14-.02(19) mandated video surveillance of ballot drop boxes after polling places closed. The rule also allowed for the removal of drop boxes if the surveillance requirements were not met. This measure was struck down despite claims that it would help maintain transparency in absentee voting. - Poll Watching Area Expansion
The SEB expanded mandatory poll-watching zones under Rule 183-1-13-.05, allowing observers access to additional areas where ballots were being processed. The court found this rule to be overreaching. - Absentee Ballot Reporting Requirements
SEB Rule 183-1-12-.21 introduced additional requirements for county boards to report absentee ballot information, including the submission of partisan breakdowns and weekend reports. This rule was also invalidated by the court. - Hand-Counting Ballots After Polls Close
The SEB mandated that ballots be hand-counted after polls closed under Rule 183-1-12-.12(a)(5). This rule, like the others, was found to be unconstitutional.
Judge Cox’s ruling has been met with sharp criticism from those who believe the measures were essential for safeguarding the integrity of the election process. Many conservatives argue that striking down these rules will open the door to potential voter fraud and undermine confidence in the election outcome.
Critics of the decision, including some election security advocates, have labeled it as a clear example of judicial activism. They argue that the court is interfering in what should be the prerogative of the SEB—an elected body responsible for ensuring secure and transparent elections. Some have gone so far as to suggest that the ruling will sow chaos in the upcoming 2024 election, as key mechanisms designed to prevent fraud are now void.
On the other hand, supporters of the ruling claim that the SEB overstepped its authority by imposing rules that were not backed by the state’s Election Code. They argue that these measures placed unnecessary burdens on voters and could have suppressed voter turnout, particularly in minority communities. The plaintiffs in the case celebrated the ruling as a victory for the rule of law, asserting that it prevents the state from enacting election rules without proper legislative authority.
This ruling comes just weeks before the critical 2024 election, adding a layer of uncertainty to an already contentious political environment. While the court’s decision may be appealed, it is unlikely that the SEB will have time to implement new measures before voters head to the polls. As a result, election officials may have to navigate the upcoming election without the enhanced verification processes that were initially planned.
For Republicans, who have pushed for stricter election rules in the wake of the 2020 election, this decision represents a significant setback. For Democrats and voting rights advocates, the ruling is seen as a validation of their concerns about voter suppression.
As the 2024 election approaches, the consequences of this ruling will likely be felt across Georgia, potentially influencing voter turnout, election security, and the ultimate outcome of the election.
