Under the guise of election integrity, the Georgia State Election Board is preparing to impose more last-minute rules that will only add unnecessary complexity, create discrepancies in procedures and fuel distrust among voters. As a former election official who managed oversight and enforcement of election procedures in Georgia for five years, I am deeply concerned about the unnecessary disruption these rules will bring about.
The board must be urged to stop or, at the very least, delay these new actions before they cause greater harm to elections in Georgia.
Credit: Handout
Credit: Handout
The timing of this vote is particularly problematic. The SEB’s vote on 11 new rules occurs just 45 days before the general election. If these rules pass, election officials will be forced to adapt new procedures and train workers in a very short time frame. Implementing such changes so close to an election is not only impractical but also irresponsible, as it increases the potential for errors and undermines confidence in the integrity of the election process. The election is already underway in Georgia. Overseas ballots were mailed on Sept. 17, and absentee ballots are set to be mailed around Oct. 7 — just two weeks after the SEB vote.
Changing the rules of the game midway not only makes no sense, but it also reeks of an attempt to manipulate the system for unfair advantage. Even if each of the 11 proposed rules were useful, clear and benign, implementing them in such a compressed time frame would still be challenging and ill-advised. Though a few of the changes seem relatively straightforward, others are far from simple.
Hand counting takes us backward
One particularly troubling rule requires hand-counting ballots on election night. The current system, which relies on voting machines, has a proven track record both nationally and in Georgia. Election workers cross-check the electronic poll book count with the ballot scanner count, recording results on a recap sheet. Votes are also captured on the scanner’s memory card which is sent to the county’s election headquarters for tabulation. Voting machines streamline the chain of custody for ballot results, significantly reducing the chances of human error or manipulation. They are effective, reliable and secure. Hand counting is a step backward. It introduces a significant margin of error, especially considering election workers would be asked to perform these manual counts after 12 to 14 hours of work on what is expected to be a very busy Election Day. Data shows human counts can be off by as much as 25%. Quite simply, there is no justifiable reason to resort to hand counts.
Unnecessary delays and cost
In the proposed hand count scenario, ballots would be removed from the voting box and grouped into stacks of 50. Even in a small precinct with 1,000 ballots, the delays would be significant. If it takes about a minute to count each stack, multiplying that by 20 stacks and three counters results in extra time before the precinct can release results. And that’s assuming the counters get it right the first time, every time — something that’s unlikely. If the counts don’t match, the process starts over. This would need to be repeated at every polling location on election night. If the hand count can’t be completed on election night, the rule proposes that the process extend into the following day. In addition to the time delays, the additional costs of paying election workers for this extended process would be costly and further burdening already-stretched municipal budgets. These delays and costs will likely embolden conspiracy theorists and further undermine public confidence in the election system. At a time when the country is grappling with unprecedented levels of mis- and disinformation about elections, these rules will only fuel the problem.
Voter disenfranchisement
The SEB’s responsibility is to establish rules and regulations that support “fair, legal and orderly elections.” Yet, that is clearly not the aim of these new proposals. If election integrity were truly the SEB’s goal, it would heed the concerns of groups like the Georgia Association of Voter Registration and Election Officials, which called on the SEB to stop adopting new rules in August, and just this week asked for the proposed rules to be tabled. Many election workers have spoken out against these changes in public meetings. Legal advocacy groups Public Rights Project, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, and ACLU of Georgia have also objected to the new rules.
If election integrity were truly the goal, the SEB would recognize that sowing chaos and fostering a climate ripe for delays and discrepancies only serves to disenfranchise voters across all political parties. Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger said it best: “These misguided last-minute changes from unelected bureaucrats who have never run an election and seem to reject the advice of anyone who ever has could cause serious problems in an election that otherwise will be secure and accurate.”
By implementing nearly a dozen rules so close to a general election, the SEB will only wreak havoc on local election officials who are already under immense stress and scrutiny. This is no way to protect a democracy — and perhaps that is precisely the point.
Clifford Tatum is a former Georgia election official who facilitated the meetings and rulemaking process for the Georgia State Election Board. He has served as an elections administrator for the District of Columbia Board of Elections, as general counsel for the U.S. Elections Assistance Commission and as the elections administrator for Harris County, Texas. He is senior staff attorney and election subject matter expert for the Public Rights Project — Election Protection Hub.
About the Author
