On Monday, the state and national Democrats Sue parties filed a lawsuit regarding the recently adopted amendments to the regulations imposed by Georgia’s State Election Board. The amendments permit election officers to delay certifying election results, which may bring about chaos within the electoral process in Georgia.
Overview of the New Rules
The State Election Board established new rules limiting the level to which a county’s election board may accept election results as final. These rules require the members of the county election boards to make a “reasonable inquiry” as to why specific results should be certified. They also give the members a right to access all election non-televised data. People claim that these interests are merely a smokescreen to protect the integrity of the certification process, likely leading to further unnecessary time loss.
The lawsuit provided several reasons, stating that these rules violate a state law that requires county election officers to certify the results, making it mandatory to complete the election results certification. It states that the State Election Board is illegal in its action due to the political pressure exerted by Trump-supporting members. The suit raises fears that the rules may create room for disarray after elections and the corresponding delay in announcing the final results.
Democratic Concerns and Allegations
According to the Democrats and voters’ rights campaigners, the amendments to the rules perceivably have some room for abuse, most notably in the tendency to declaim or prolonged purposes aimed at further slowing the acceptance of results in Republican areas. In this case, the complaint states that the Georgia courts have ruled in most counties on ascertainment for over a hundred years, which is a matter of law, and the official has no discretion. In an amending ruling, the contention is that the law’s provisions for “reasonable inquiry” and the more extensive document review in the management proposal are inconsistent, potentially allowing their misuse as impediments to certification.
As for Democratic U.S. Rep. Lucy McBath, she condemned the board’s actions, stating that the new provisions are part of the larger plan to undermine the electoral system and suppress the vote. She claimed the board had been a “co-conspirator” in the plans to impose hurdles in the vote counting and the subsequent certification.
Response from Republicans
State Republican Party Chairman Josh McKoon supported modifying the rules, arguing that the measures aimed to give county election boards more responsibilities regarding certifying election results. According to McKoon, changes were made to improve the safety and trust of the people during the election process.
Republicans contend that these measures are fully justified. It is the election boards’ prerogative to maintain integrity in the results, and therefore, reviewing election documents seems to be a good policy. They believe that the amended Act’s characteristics will benefit the entire population of Georgians rather than lifting relatively high barriers to political participation.
Legal and Political Implications
The lawsuit could result in serious legal and even political repercussions. If the court rules in favour of the Democrats, the new rules will likely have no application, and the requirement to execute all election results in record time will be reinstated. The civil suit also demonstrates these pervasive partisan skirmishes around electoral reforms in Georgia, a major political battlefield in the United States regarding voting and election matters.
The role of Trump adherents within the State Election Board and past comments from both political parties illustrate the increasingly bitten perspective of election management in Georgia. Legislative policy may obtain significant time frames in the future and, to a large extent, determine the outcome of elections in Georgia.
As the case progresses, all eyes will be on whether the newly imposed regulations will be enforced or struck down. The litigation highlights the inner conflict between state election officials and partisans in a larger picture of an ongoing dispute about election legitimacy and management in the country.
