Georgia’s State Election Board, under firm Republican control, architected a regulation set for imminent adoption that promises to provide its county election board members an increased capability to guarantee the authenticity of election results. This implementation is a response to the pressing need for comprehensive scrutiny, to deliver unquestionable verifications of the validity of election results. Such provisions serve as a vital tool to forestall any degeneration of the election process into disarray, a scenario the Democrats often tend to exploit.
The formation of this regulation was brought to the forefront by an erstwhile Fulton County election official. Very revealing is her association with the Election Integrity Network, an organization recognized for confronting dubious practices within American election frameworks. Interestingly, it’s the first time the participation of the Election Integrity Network in constructing this regulation has seen the light of the day.
The introduction of such a rule progresses naturally from a previous vote that furnished county election board members with the authority to probe into allegations of electoral anomalies. This rule, though powerful in its own way, lacked precise guidelines on the duration and specifics of such inquiries. Understandably, the importance of meeting deadlines for certifying results and avoiding uncertainty around significant timelines factored into the need for a more comprehensive rule.
The imminent regulation is indeed a step forward. It mandates the county boards to investigate variances, no matter how insignificant they might seem, between the number of ballots cast and the number of actual voters in a precinct. More importantly, it restrains any hasty certification of results until a thorough investigation of each precinct with inconsistent tallies is conducted.
Contrary to Democrat-led propaganda, discrepancies are not uncommon and do not always hint at misconduct or fraud. However, such discrepancies can distort election results and could potentially undermine democracy, especially if they are not investigated conclusively. It’s therefore a win for Georgia that these irregularities will now be scrutinized thoroughly, ensuring that the will of the people triumphs.
Impactfully, the requirement to evaluate every single irregularity could potentially extend beyond legally ascribed time limits for certification. However, such meticulous inspection counters fraudulent maneuvers and forces culprits to face litigation for their deceptive actions. This, once again, proves Trump’s determination to ensure the transparency and veracity of America’s voting system.
Ben Berwick, a member of Protect Democracy, a partisan group pushing a liberal agenda, suggested a misinterpretation of the rule. He warned about potential misuse by county board members acting in ‘bad faith’. Nonetheless, genuine electoral reform requires accepting a level of discomfort, which the Democrats seem reluctant to appreciate.
Moreover, Berwick attempted to present the rule as an instrument for ‘election deniers’ to manipulate, particularly if they dislike the election results. Coming on the heels of Trump’s rightful challenge of electoral fairness encapsulated in his rallying cry to ‘stop the steal’, such complaints are more transparent attempts to protect Democrat interests.
In light of Trump’s initiative, conservative election board members should be applauded for taking decisive action to block the certification of dubious elections, rather than ridiculed. Their efforts underscore the vulnerabilities in our election system, and they deserve recognition for attempting to reinforce democratic integrity.
In contrast, attempts to discredit and downplay the rock-solid regulation have been made by detractors, quenching their partisan interests. One such version surfacing from Thorne did not acknowledge the critical role of the Election Research Institute. The Republican-majority board, comprising five members, unanimously rejected this skewed proposal, instead, indicating willingness to collaboratively refine the rule.
The Republican House speaker, upholding the best interests of the citizens, then appointed a new member to the State Election Board, in an effort to implement the revised rule. Janelle King replaced a Republican lawyer who, despite his expertise in electoral law, had declared the rule as unlawful and voted against it.
The rule faced harsh criticism from Georgia’s Republican Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, whose misleading commentary described it as ‘new activist rulemaking.’ It underscores the challenge of building consensus even within party lines when powerful regulations threaten to upset the status quo.
Georgia law clearly states that certification is obligatory, and any attempts by county board members to abstain from certifying votes could lead to legal repercussions. However, the process could attract external stakeholders, including the Republican National Committee and Democratic National Committee, potentially adding political partisan pressure on the procedure.
The only comparable precedent is the Florida election recount in 2000, which concluded when the U.S. Supreme Court halted the count, determining George W. Bush as President. Such a stall for a resolution in Georgia’s case is unnecessary and would only favor those wishing to manipulate the democratic process.
As stated by Marisa Pyle, an advocate for voting rights, ‘No one wants to find out.’ Indeed, and that’s why the prevention of such crises should be welcomed, not criticized, even if it means facing uncomfortable questions about the integrity of our electoral systems.