CARTERSVILLE — The Georgia Supreme Court debated Wednesday whether the State Election Board went too far when it attempted to pass new voting rules weeks before last year’s election.
The case tests whether the board’s right-wing majority had the power to require election inquiries and hand counts of ballots without laws passed by the Georgia General Assembly. While a judge’s order stopped those proposals from taking effect, the question remained about the extent of the board’s power.
Justices on the state’s highest court on Wednesday often interrupted attorneys to ask whether the State Election Board has the authority to create new policies.
“It does seem that some of these rules … looks a lot like sort of setting up their own mini set of laws that govern that aren’t connected to anything in the code,” said Justice Andrew Pinson during oral arguments held at the Booth Western Art Museum in Cartersville.
Justice Sarah Hawkins Warren said separation of powers between branches of government is “a big deal.”
“The exact question that is trying to be answered here is: Is this permissible? Does this exceed authority?” Warren asked.
The court will rule in the coming months on the appeal of a Fulton County judge’s decision to overturn the State Election Board’s rules before November’s election.
The appeal pits a Republican-led organization, Eternal Vigilance Action, against the State Election Board and the Republican Party.
Eternal Vigilance Action is asking the court to uphold the lower court’s decision and rein in the board, while the state wants the court to reinstate the election board rules.
Credit: HYOSUB SHIN / AJC
Credit: HYOSUB SHIN / AJC
The founders of the United States and Georgia created clear lines between the roles of legislative, judicial and executive branches, said Christopher Anulewicz, an attorney for Eternal Vigilance Action.
“It could lead to tyranny” without separation of powers, Anulewicz said. “It was that big of a deal that we want to ensure that these things are separate and apart.”
The Republican Party argued to the court that the board’s proposed changes to election procedures supplemented state law without contradicting it.
“The argument advanced against these rules is that … there’s just too much discretion given to the State Election Board. We think that standard is incorrect,” said Gilbert Dickey, an attorney for the Republican National Committee and the Georgia Republican Party.
In the weeks before last year’s election, the State Election Board approved several rules that drew national attention, including new requirements for a “reasonable inquiry” before certifying results and an election night hand count of the number of ballots cast.
Credit: Arvin Temkar/AJC
Credit: Arvin Temkar/AJC
Critics of the rules — including Democrats, county election directors and voting rights groups — said the rules threatened to delay results or provide justification for county election boards to reject results.
But supporters said the rules would have added safeguards to ensure elections are trustworthy and accurate.
After Republican Donald Trump won Georgia by 115,000 votes, county election boards unanimously certified the results — without any controversy over vote-counting procedures the State Election Board tried to change.
The Georgia Supreme Court’s decision could have a far-reaching impact.
If the court rules the State Election Board has the authority to change election rules, its Republican majority could resume efforts to impose vote-counting requirements on election officials.
Or a court decision against the board could constrain it to its job of reviewing investigations of fraud and irregularities.
Credit: HYOSUB SHIN / AJC
Credit: HYOSUB SHIN / AJC
The court is considering seven overturned rules:
- Requiring county election boards to conduct an undefined “reasonable inquiry” before certifying results.
- Mandating an election night hand count to verify the number of ballots. Poll workers would have counted the number of ballots but not votes.
- Empowering county election board members to examine any election-related materials before certifying results.
- Requiring family members or caregivers to provide a signature and photo ID if they drop off an absentee ballot for someone else.
- Calling for video surveillance of drop boxes inside early voting locations outside of voting hours.
- Expanding access for partisan poll watchers inside vote tabulation areas.
- Publicizing daily reports of the number of early and absentee voters, accessible 24 hours a day, categorized by partisan and nonpartisan races.
About the Author
Keep Reading
The Latest
Featured
