Fulton County board delays decision after challenger cites out‑of‑state voting evidence

Earl Ferguson, a longtime Fulton County registered voter, presented a formal challenge on Feb. 13 asserting that 23 registered electors ought to be removed from Fulton County voter rolls because, he said, many had cast ballots in North Carolina.

Ferguson told the Fulton County Board of Registration and Elections that he rechecked a prior challenge list and found “1,475 of these individuals … voted last year in the federal election” in North Carolina; he said he submitted a shorter sample list of 23 for the board’s hearing. “The right to vote is a fundamental right of citizenships,” Ferguson said while arguing that Georgia law treats a person who votes in another state as having lost residency here.

The board heard detailed legal argument from Ferguson citing multiple Georgia code sections (including provisions he cited as “2-16,” “2-17” and related sections) and references to the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). Board members and staff questioned specific claims and examined evidence during the hearing. Department staff reported that most of the challenged names were in an inactive status and that, for one challenged active registrant, staff had received proof of residence — current rent and utility bills dated Jan. 22, 2025 — and the challenger withdrew that particular challenge at the meeting.

Board members repeatedly said they needed time to review Ferguson’s written legal references and the department’s response. Several members asked the registrar or board counsel for a formal legal opinion explaining (1) how Georgia law and federal NVRA guidance govern residency challenges and (2) whether the board’s procedure distinguishing active and inactive registrants is consistent with state and federal law. The board agreed to postpone formal disposition of the challenges to its March meeting so the panel could consider a written legal opinion and circulate a clear question to the board attorney.

Registrar staff also described the department’s challenge process and noted practical constraints: challenge notices are sent by first‑class mail, returned mail is used to place voters into inactive status, and cancellations after prolonged inactivity are processed through the Secretary of State’s procedures. Staff said they would circulate the Justice Department documents referenced by the challenger and provide the board with the department’s administrative materials in advance of the March hearing.

The board did not render a final decision on any of the 23 challenged registrations at the Feb. 13 meeting. Instead, members directed staff and counsel to prepare a legal opinion and reconvene consideration of the challenges in March so the board can act after reviewing legal guidance and the full administrative record.