A recent decision by a state court in Georgia indicates that suspicions of fraud or technical mistakes are insufficient grounds for county election board members to block the certification of votes. The ruling suggests that the question of whether local officials have the jurisdiction to eliminate individual voting precincts from their county total, due to supposed discrepancies, is now off the table. Intriguingly, this conclusion comes off the back of a revision by the State Election Board, which seemed to facilitate this kind of exclusionary action.
Judge Robert McBurney of Fulton County Superior Court concluded that permitting these board members to act as investigator, prosecutor, judge, and jury to either certify or dismiss election results based on a solitary judgment of fraud or error would shush the voice of the Georgian electorate. Such an effect is incompatible with our Constitution and the Election Code, asserted McBurney.
This ruling traces back to a legal suit filed by Julie Adams, a Republican member of Fulton County’s election board, who incidentally is also a part of a conservative group, known for its skepticism about the integrity of US elections. The arguments proposed by Adams’ attorney in the court highlighted that the updated election rule grants the county board members the authority to turn down suspected faulty or fraudulent votes.
Moreover, according to this claim, the board members could go as far as excluding the entire votes of a precinct if something suspicious catches their eye in the returns. Interestingly, this claim follows the loss of President Donald Trump in the 2020 re-election. Reacting to this, Republican legislators in Georgia started revamping county election boards gradually, often replacing democrat board members with Trump supporters.
As an instance, in counties like Spalding, Troup and Ware, these election boards are ruled by skeptics, including an individual who hasn’t shied away from launching derogatory comments against President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris. If the court had accepted Adams’ interpretation of the rule, these county boards would have obtained the authority to discount the ballots of the democratic precincts that had delivered around 8,000 additional votes for Biden over Trump in 2020.
Nonetheless, the ruling by McBurney has clarified that the elimination of Democratic precincts’ votes is simply intolerable. McBurney penned down that even if a board member stumbles upon an apparent case of fraud or a systemic error during her duties, all votes must still be counted.
What is advised for the concerned board member to do is report her suspicions of fraud or error to the appropriate district attorney. Trying to manage professional investigator roles wouldn’t be conducive to their roles. If there are third parties keen on contesting the results of the election, the established path is to challenge the election in a court of law.
Fascinatingly, Judge McBurney implies that, in an open court under the watchful eyes of a judge and the public, the claims made by one side can be scrutinized by the other, but such a powerful mechanism doesn’t exist when county board members privately adjudicate claims, leading to votes being excluded from the final tally without any provision for due process to the voters.
This McBurney decree has brought us one step closer to resolving the legal tussle regarding whether the county board members have the authority to delay or block the certification of electoral results. Interestingly, experts have been warning about the potential impact of such powers on the presidential elections in November.
Curiously, many experts are united in their view that, traditionally, certification has not been seen as an opportunity for the board members to use their discretionary power. The key driver of this legal confrontation has been none other than Julie Adams herself.
This recent McBurney ruling, which only directly addresses Adams’ lawsuit, also contained the request made by Adams in her lawsuit for better accessibility to election-related documents and information before certifying. Judge McBurney agreed to this, adding that late access to such information didn’t allow a flat out refusal to certify the election results.
Adams’ lawyer stated that the suit was brought in order to ensure that Ms. Adams had unhindered access to all the election material needed to safeguard Fulton County elections from irregularities, and to be able to counteract any issues with the election results. The lawyer concluded that the ruling preserved her rights in both aspects.
Furthermore, it was clarified that the available mediums for county board members to question suspicious electoral results, remain the same as before the lawsuit, and these don’t encompass the procrastination or refusal of the certification. Adams strongly believes in the significance of having access to the entire election process, for every board member to be familiar with and have confidence in the genuine and precise results prior to the certification time.
A rights organization expressed its support for the ruling, mentioning, ‘Georgia voters won today — against a brazen endeavor from a renowned election denier — who aimed to shift the fundamental, non discretionary nature of certification duties into arbitrary choices dependent on their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the outcome.’ This judgment is anticipated to be challenged, implying that the ultimate settlement may only come closer to the election.
Interestingly, Judge McBurney didn’t provide a final verdict in a parallel case heard alongside Adams’ about a new clause around an ambiguous ‘reasonable inquiry’ potentially causing a disruptive effect on the election by prolonging past imminent certification deadlines. However, he did affirm that a county board member is obligated to ‘certify her jurisdiction’s election returns’ by the state deadline. Currently, the legal conflict surrounding these set of State Election Board rules continue.