Overview

Georgia has protections in place to safeguard its election processes and voting systems, including statute that clearly makes the certification process non-discretionary, but recent changes to the laws and rules governing the administration of elections have offered more levers for bad actors in official positions to disrupt or delay elections than were available to them in 2020.

While some states have further solidified their election administration law to improve transparency and increase confidence in elections, Georgia has done the opposite, with rogue officials determined to add uncertainty into its process just weeks before votes are to be cast. What is certain is that Georgia’s elections are more vulnerable to disruptions now than they were in 2020. Georgia’s elections and election-denying officials will need to be closely watched to ensure that 2024’s elections are run freely and fairly, and decided by the voters.

Below, we highlight areas that have been targeted in the past and potential areas that may be vulnerable this election cycle.

Changes To Election Administration

Georgia is a target of election conspiracy theories that have led to a push for unnecessary changes in the law that are creating monumental shifts in how elections are conducted. Some of the rules violate existing statute, have been opposed by Georgia’s Secretary of State, conflict with Georgia Supreme Court case law, and are being challenged in court.

• Since 2020, changes have included limiting vote by mail ballot drop boxes, prohibiting counties from receiving additional funding to comply with new requirements enacted by the Georgia General Assembly, restricting when voters can receive and cast a provisional ballot, and introducing discretion and ambiguity in the counting and certification of votes.
• The State Election Board was reconfigured following the 2020 elections and currently has an election-denying majority. The State Election Board has been making new rules in the lead-up to the 2024 election. Some of the rules have violated statute (see certification below), have been opposed by Georgia’s Secretary of State, and are being challenged in court.
  • Performance Review: The State Election Board can review county performance, conduct investigations, and in severe cases, suspend and replace local election officials. This power is concerning because it could be used as a partisan tool for the State Election Board to intervene in counties that are large population centers to exercise significant influence over the statewide results.
• Because of recently enacted legislation by the legislature and the adoption of new rules by the State Election Board that directly conflict with existing statutes, Election Superintendents may have gained greater capacity to manipulate parts, including recounts, of the post-vote election processes.

Certification

Georgia law is unequivocal that certification is ministerial. Nonetheless, election deniers on County Boards of Elections have already voted against certification in past elections.

• 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.
• A member of the Fulton County Board of Elections who abstained from certifying the May 2024 primary results filed a lawsuit, seeking to have a court decide that certification of election returns is a discretionary duty. This lawsuit is ongoing; should certification be ruled discretionary it would significantly impact the post-election process.
• The newly structured State Election Board is continuing to consider administrative rules that are directly in conflict with the law on certification. This includes an amendment that was passed in August 2024 to an existing rule that grants Election Superintendents the ability to conduct an open-ended “reasonable inquiry” before certification without defining a “reasonable inquiry” or placing guardrails to prevent abuse.
• An additional rule under consideration would require Election Superintendents to begin reviewing precinct returns before the deadline for all ballots to arrive or be cured and, as a result, place burdensome requirements on county boards and staff. This rule, as proposed, creates avenues for malicious actors to disrupt the election process under the guise of addressing discrepancies. It could be exploited to sow doubt and distrust in election outcomes by deceptively allowing for minor, insubstantial discrepancies to be mole hills made into mountains.

Delay Tactics

Election deniers are likely to use every lever available to delay the finalization of results, especially should they disagree with the election outcome. Of particular concern are two aspects of Georgia law that are vulnerable to being abused to draw out the processes occurring from Election Day until a final winner is announced. These two levers are the right to contest an election and the right to seek a recount.

• Contest: As one of the most common tactics, losing candidates may use the courts to draw out a legal challenge to the election. Safeguards exist and courts are likely to eventually throw out meritless cases.
• Recounts: Georgia law provides losing candidates with a right to have the results recounted if the margin of victory between the prevailing candidate and themselves is 0.5% or less.