Less than three weeks away, the United States is gearing up for the 2024 presidential election. On Wednesday, a judge in Georgia declared seven election rules passed by the state’s election board invalid, demanding a halt to their implementation.
Fulton County Superior Court Judge Thomas Cox announced the invalidity of the seven election rules following a hearing on the election regulations for the 2024 election. Of particular concern were three rules regarding counting, certification, and absentee ballot review procedures.
Judge Cox wrote in his ruling, “The court hereby declares these rules to be illegal, unconstitutional, and void.”
The day before, another judge at the Fulton County Superior Court, Robert McBurney, ruled to suspend the rule requiring manual ballot counting.
McBurney also ruled that local election officials in Georgia have a duty to certify election results, even if irregularities in the voting process are evident, and do not have the authority to refuse certification.
While McBurney did not find the rule requiring manual counting to be illegal, he believed that it was too close to the election day for further review before suspending the new regulation.
In recent months, the Georgia State Election Board, dominated by the Republican Party, passed several new rules mostly related to post-voting procedures.
Judge Cox’s Wednesday ruling stated that the Georgia House did not provide sufficient guidance for the election board’s new rules and that the state election board had no authority to oversee federal elections.
Prior to this, the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Party of Georgia had filed lawsuits against the new rules passed by the state election board, with additional lawsuits being added later.
One such rule was the “reasonable inquiry rule,” which required local election officials to verify the accuracy of election results before certification. Another was the “audit rule,” allowing members of the county election board to review all election-related documents before certifying results.
The plaintiffs also challenged the “drop box rule,” which mandated voters to provide a photo ID with a signature when depositing absentee ballots in drop boxes, and the “monitoring rule,” requiring video surveillance on all drop boxes so that votes not made within the view of the camera would be deemed invalid.
On September 25, the plaintiffs added lawsuits against other election rules, targeting the “poll watcher rule” and the “daily reporting rule,” which expanded the areas where poll watchers could be stationed and added additional requirements for absentee voting reports by county election officials.
The plaintiffs also sued against the “manual counting rule,” requiring three independent voting station staff to manually tally the election day ballots to ensure the number of paper ballots matched the electronic counts on scanners, check-in computers, and voting machines.
Supporters argue that ensuring the accuracy of the total votes before certification by county election officials is necessary. Critics, however, argue that these rules could be used to delay or deny certification.
Georgia voters cast their ballots using touchscreen machines. The voting machines display a readable list of options and a QR verification code on printed paper ballots. These paper ballots are then scanned to record the votes. The manual counting involves the paper ballots and does not involve electronic votes.
Supporters of the election rules assert that manual counting only takes a few extra minutes, not hours, and during the counting process, the scanner memory cards containing the vote tally can be transferred to county tally centers to avoid delays in reporting.
The plaintiffs believe that these new rules to be implemented before the 2024 election violate the Georgia Constitution and may disrupt the voting process. They have requested the court to block the enforcement of these rules.
The Georgia State Election Board has the option to appeal Judge Cox’s ruling. With less than three weeks until election day, an appeal may put a strain on the already tight timeframe.