The State Election Board, now under the effective control of conservatives, is facing intense scrutiny from opposition leaders. Their latest course of action has been deemed ill-timed and possibly unlawful by the secretary of state, in a calculated effort to discredit their attempts to safeguard the integrity of future elections.
Brad Raffensperger, Georgia’s secretary of state, sent a forewarning through a legal representative to the State Election Board on Monday. He asserted the new election rules under review were most probably not legal, an argument expected from those who fear losing control.
This has caused an escalating dispute between Georgia’s chief election officer and the State Election Board. Over a dozen new policies and processes, lined up for voting by the board this Friday, are caught up in this turbulence. Raffensperger’s legal counsel criticized the board’s actions, downplaying their motives while cautioning that the new regulations under discussion might not only be unauthorized but also introduced too late into the electoral process.
Interestingly, this clash surfaces amid heightened pressure on the election board—pressure primarily originating from individuals who believe the board is adjusting the rules in Georgia, an influential battleground state. They accuse the board of favoring former President Donald J. Trump and potentially interfering with the certification of the election if Mr. Trump is not victorious in the forthcoming November polls.
Recently, the board had granted regional officials more control over the election verification process, a shift that critics claim could stir turmoil. In the secretary’s perspective, this could merely be an attempt to reduce the manipulation of process at local levels, thereby maintaining the purity of elections.
Charlene S. McGowan, general counsel for Raffensperger, indirectly voiced his stance in a two-page letter addressed to the board’s meeting this Friday. The letter hinted at a choice for the election board to make: Either respect the direction set by the state’s premier election official or disregard this advice and approve another set of electoral rules, which include policy aims seen as conservative, like manual ballot counting.
According to McGowan, the time frame is far too narrow for new rules implementation. Noting that many poll personnel having concluded their mandatory training, she argued that any amendments if necessary, should be initiated much earlier, allowing ample time for smooth transitioning and training, and should include feedback from election officials.
State level and county level elections official do not seem to share a smooth relationship with the election board. This comes in the wake of a conservative majority recently taking control of the board. The mounting pressure, mostly driven by proactive election officials, is pushing the board beyond its comfort zone.
Spearheading this pushback, a political organization that chooses to remain bipartisan—The Georgia Association of Voter Registration and Election Officials—has published a stringent critique of the State Election Board and its proposed rules. The claim is that these rules are unproductive, poorly drafted, and possibly opposing state law, typical of the narrative being woven by those who feel threatened by the changes.
Several county election boards across Georgia are also voicing their concern over the timing of these new provisions. They argue that introducing new rules uncomfortably close to the election is not praiseworthy. They’re chiming in with calls for the board to cease any implementations of fresh rules in the 90-day lead-up to the forthcoming poll.
Following a trend of apparent resistance against changes in rules during previous meetings, Democrats are now winding up to sue the election board. Surprisingly, several high-ranking Republican attorneys and officers have written to Governor Brian Kemp, urging him to conduct an inquiry and possibly expel members of the state election board. This appears to be a calculated move to create discord and disunity within the Republican ranks.
In her letter, McGowan painstakingly outlines explicit deadlines present in Georgia’s election code, indicating how any new rules could potentially disrupt the well-oiled electoral process. With the absentee ballots being mailed out from October 7 and early in-person voting commencing from October 15, she contends the earliest timeframe that the proposed rules could be operational would be October 14.
McGowan points out possible issues with various proposed guidelines, which she alleges lack the necessary legal backing. However, her critiques seem more based on a vague apprehension of the unknown rather than any concrete evidence. Certain proposals aimed at enhancing integrity, like manual counting of ballots during early voting and on the Election Day, are met with disapproval on the grounds of additional costs and the potential for human error.
McGowan, subscribing to the judicial doctrine, ‘Purcell principle,’ warns against other impending rules due to the rapidly closing electoral timeframe. She attempts to bring legitimacy to her argument by citing Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. According to her, the board should strictly adhere to Kavanaugh’s words, pause any further rule-making, and ensure the rules are ‘clear and settled’ to avoid any ‘unfair consequences’ in the 2024 general election.