Two court rulings in Georgia in the past week have struck down efforts by Republican activists to empower political challenges to November’s election results, but they have also struck down efforts by Republican activists to empower political challenges to November’s election results. The ongoing legal battle is far from over.
Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney ruled Tuesday that election officials have a legal obligation to certify elections, and any disputes over the results or allegations of fraud should be handled by the local district attorney’s office. It was left to the investigation. The ruling rejected arguments by pro-Trump lawyers working with Julie Adams, a Republican appointee to the Fulton Board of Elections, that the board could exercise discretion over certification.
The next day, another Fulton County Superior Court Judge, Thomas Cox, issued a stern order after a short hearing invalidating seven rules set this year by Georgia’s State Elections Commission. One of the rules that became invalid required that ballots be counted by hand on election night. The second allowed election officials to conduct a poorly defined “reasonable investigation” into discrepancies before issuing certificates. And a third option would require board members to turn over a large amount of documents to election officials for review before certification.
The rule, passed by a three-member bloc of Trump supporters on the five-member board, “does not support Georgia election law and effectively violates election law,” according to the ruling. ”, the state added. The Board of Elections did not have the authority to enact rules that go beyond state law. The ruling significantly limits the State Board of Elections’ ability to enact further rules.
The Georgia Republican Party said it would appeal the ruling, while voter groups praised the victory.
Nicola Hines, president of the League of Women Voters of Georgia and a plaintiff in the lawsuit against the state, said, “Eliminating the state election board’s hand-counting and other rules would harm voters, election integrity, and democracy. “This is a huge victory for the entire cause.” The Election Commission said in a statement. “These rules were introduced with malicious intent and were intended to cause disruption to Georgia’s secure election process. The Federation remains committed to standing up for Georgia voters every step of the way. I’ll go.”
The State Board of Elections’ rulemaking has put many county election officials, voting rights advocates and the attorney general’s office at odds, with the attorney general’s office saying the rules under consideration would likely be found unconstitutional. Recommendations were made to the committee.
Janelle King, one of three board members whom President Trump hailed as “the pit bulls of integrity, transparency and winning” at the Atlanta rally earlier this year, was quoted by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution as saying: defended the board’s actions in an interview on “Political Georgia” podcast. Thursday.
“The benefit of all this is that I hope people understand that this was never a partisan issue and it’s not a partisan issue,” she said. “Republicans brought this lawsuit against us,” she added, referring to former Georgia Rep. Scott Turner, the plaintiff who sued the board.
Regarding hand counting of ballots, King said the board’s rulemaking is intended to ensure an accurate vote count.
“This is not to say there’s something evil going on,” Dr. King said. “We keep talking about human error. If we know that human error happens, it’s important to create rules surrounded by laws that can plug that hole. That’s what I think This is what I set out to do and I will continue to do.”
Voting rights groups disagree with her characterization of the board’s rulemaking.
Skip past newsletter promotions
Sign up for The Stakes — US Election Edition
The Guardian guides you through the turmoil of a presidential election with huge consequences.
Privacy Notice: Newsletters may include information about charities, online advertising, and content sponsored by external parties. Please see our Privacy Policy for more information. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and are subject to the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.
After newsletter promotion
“The 11th-hour rule adopted by the State Board of Elections will only confuse the election process and confuse voters,” said Jonathan Diaz, director of voting advocacy and partnerships at the Campaign Legal Center. “We are pleased that one state court has agreed that hand counting rules cannot be enforced in the upcoming election, and we encourage other courts to follow suit.”
The board itself has come under criticism from Democratic lawmakers who view its members as partisan in a way that could violate the law. The lawsuit by Georgia Sen. Nabilah Islam Parks, former Fulton Board of Elections Chairwoman Kathy Woolard, and state Sen.-elect Randall Mangum prompts Gov. Brian Kemp to request a conflict of interest commission investigation. They sought the possibility of compulsory action and the dismissal of some committee members.
Judge Ural Glanville dismissed the lawsuit earlier this month, ruling that Democrats simply labeled their accusations “formal charges” and could not force the governor to act.
Mangum said the three have appealed the ruling.
“Look, these people clearly have conflicts of interest and ethical violations and are intentionally violating the law,” Mangum said. He was referring to comments by one of the state commissioners, Rick Jeffares, that he had indicated interest in a former Trump campaign aide to serve as head of the local Environmental Protection Agency. “This atmosphere is coming from a corrupt election commission. It’s just a few corrupt people. These people who are lining up for jobs in the new government… It’s the referees lobbying for team jobs. It’s like doing that, so you can call the play fairly. So, you don’t want to look into it?”
Mangum said the rule change that was struck down at the last minute by a Georgia judge could never have happened under the provisions of the Voting Rights Act that were struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court. “A preclearance requirement would stop all of this.”
