<aside> ‼️ Please Note: We share this information with the hope that it aids pro-democracy activists by highlighting specific process points to monitor for any subversive efforts. Due to the sensitivity of this information and the potential for it to be exploited by bad actors, this page and the links within it should not be shared outside of the pro-democracy community.
If you have any questions or feedback on these identified vulnerabilities, please contact us at info[at]informingdemocracy[dot]org
</aside>
Georgia was at the epicenter of the election denial movement during the 2020 election. Election officials at all levels faced pressure from the Trump campaign and outside actors to subvert the fair administration of the election and declare Trump the winner. These efforts included two recounts, multiple failed lawsuits, and breaching sensitive voting equipment in Coffee County.
Since 2020, the effort to undermine confidence in Georgia elections has only intensified, despite the fact that Georgia’s elections are run well and accurately, as reinforced by the findings of all the audits, recounts, and investigations that took place in that election’s aftermath. The Georgia State Election Board was reconfigured by the Georgia General Assembly, which made the Secretary of State a nonvoting member of the Board. Later legislation completely removed the Secretary of State from the State Election Board, and that five-person board now has a majority of election deniers.
The State Election Board passed administrative rules that are in direct conflict with the statute on certification, and is continuing to consider more. The Secretary of State has characterized this as an “11th-hour effort to impose new activist rulemaking.” “Raffensperger PR Defending SB 202.” These rules give unchecked power over certification to county Election Superintendents and create avenues for malicious actors to disrupt the election process under the guise of addressing perceived discrepancies. The State Election Board also has the discretion to order performance reviews of local election officials — an authority that can be abused, as has been observed in Fulton County.
Because of these rules and new election laws passed since November 2020 by the legislature, Election Superintendents have gained greater discretion to grind the counting and certification processes to a halt over minor and irrelevant discrepancies, including the authority to order a pre-certification audit [1] for any or all races — in addition to the ones that are statutorily required. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-498(f).
As a result of these changes, there are potentially more levers available to bad actors in official positions to disrupt or delay the administration of elections.
Informing Democracy is in the process of reviewing all county Election Superintendents to comprehensively identify members who may attempt to undermine the post-vote process this November. A review of County Supervisors of Elections and Probate Judges showed a promising lack of anti-democratic findings among those officials, with only 6% of officials researched eliciting concern. However, members of county Boards of Elections have groundlessly voted against certification, pushed for hand counting of every ballot and other post-election audit measures, and platformed election conspiracies. The ongoing comprehensive review of members of county Boards of Elections is expected to result in a higher rate of election denialism among these officials. This report will be updated with those findings and analysis, including anticipated threat counties.
Georgia’s elections are just as secure as they were in 2020 from the standpoint of being able to detect efforts to tamper with votes and change election results, but because of changes to election law and administration, Georgia’s elections are more vulnerable to disruption by bad actors now than they were in 2020. Georgia is also a top focus of the election denial movement, with sitting elected officials and outside groups determined to disrupt fair election administration and to target key process steps.
While the exact actions bad-faith actors will undertake is unclear, some of the tactics they are likely to use are more clear. So far, courts have not intervened to prevent the introduction of rules that effectively attack certification like an internet troll using “sealioning” — a term that “refers to the disingenuous action by a commenter of making an ostensible effort to engage in sincere and serious civil debate, usually by asking persistent questions of the other commenter.” “Sealioning by M-W.” What happens is the “sealion politely demands evidence for even the most mundane or self-evident statements and insists that you justify your opinions until he's satisfied — which he never is, since he's asking questions in bad faith.” Sarkeesian, “Sarkeesian's Guide.” Changes by the State Election Board have introduced opportunities for the same kind of bad-faith inquiries to be used to disrupt the counting and certification processes. New laws are also drowning local election officials in new requirements without increasing funding — and prohibiting any outside funding from groups that want to see elections run well.
The largest vulnerability to Georgia elections is not whether elections will be secure — they will — but whether bad-faith actors will disrupt the process and impair the trustworthiness of the results.
Election conspiracy theories have led to a push for unnecessary new legislation, creating monumental shifts in how elections are conducted. Since 2020, changes have included limiting vote by mail ballot drop boxes, prohibiting counties from receiving additional funding to comply with new requirements (requirements that didn't include commensurate funding increases), restricting when voters can receive and cast a provisional ballot that will be counted, and introducing discretion and ambiguity in the counting and certification of votes. Despite what proponents of the changes say, these new rules deviate from long-standing processes, and are in fact the source of the “crisis of confidence in our elections.” Williams, “Georgia Election Board gives first OK to local certification discretion.”
Below is an explanation of processes where last-minute rule changes have made the system more vulnerable to disruptions and delays.
Georgia law is unequivocal that certification is ministerial. See “Certification is Ministerial.” Nonetheless, election deniers on County Boards of Elections have already voted against certification in past elections, attempting to justify their decisions by arguing that they have discretion in their review of the canvass and vote on certification. See Riccardi, “Election certification disputes spark concerns.” Further efforts to undermine the ministerial aspect of certification are underway in two forms: through litigation and through action by the State Election Board — itself having a majority of election deniers.
Individual members of County Boards of Elections have already voted against certifying election results in Cobb, DeKalb, Fulton, Gwinnett, and Spalding counties, according to a review by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. “Certification Under Threat” at 34 – 42. Four Board members voted against certification in November 2023, giving baseless reasons like lacking confidence in how voting machines were handled, minor programming issues, and mistrust in the overall system. None of these efforts gained a majority; however, the anti-certification movement is likely to continue growing in Georgia this November.