Fulton County board sustains broad challenges to voter addresses, removes three electors after documentation or attestation

The Fulton County Board of Registration and Elections heard challenge cases on May 8 arising from a department audit that flagged more than 2,000 voter records for invalid addresses, and the board voted to sustain challenges for a large portion of those records while removing three electors after documentation or attestation.

Registration Chief Miss Glenn told the board the department, with GIS assistance, had identified addresses that ranged from post-office boxes and UPS boxes to street addresses that do not exist, and had mailed challenge-hearing notices dated April 15 and April 17 to affected electors. "We have before you today, 23 of these challenges, with the remaining having a hearing date set for June 17," Glenn said.

Three electors who attended the hearing — Maria Williamson, Abdul Mannan and Keisha Harris — each addressed the board. Maria Williamson said she has lived at her listed address for approximately 35 years, that the location is both her business and her residence and that her Georgia driver's license lists the same address. The board allowed Williamson to sign a residency-attestation form after a motion to remove her from the challenge list, and the motion passed unanimously.

Abdul Mannan told the board he lives at a commercial warehouse and said he had documentation to support his residency. The board voted to remove Mannan from the challenge list during the meeting and staff indicated they would verify documents and handle the record change that day.

Keisha Harris said she had been moving between addresses at the time her record showed a P.O. box; she presented an updated driver's license and the department verified the residential address. The board voted to remove Harris from the challenge list.

During the hearing board members and legal counsel debated whether some challenge-notice letters provided adequate specificity. Legal counsel advised that challenge letters should state the particular reason (for example, "USPS box," "commercial address" or "nonexistent address") to satisfy procedural-due-process concerns. Several board members said some of the letters contained only the word "invalid" and lacked the level of specificity that would clearly inform electors why they had been challenged.

Registration staff advised they had mailed two rounds of notices and had included a brochure explaining categories of "invalid" addresses; staff said the brochures and letters gave contact information for the department. Some board members nevertheless asked staff to reissue or clarify notices for a small set of electors whose letters did not specify the reason for the challenge.

The board voted to place multiple named voters in challenged status (the minutes list many names and categories, including USPS and UPS boxes, commercial addresses and non-existent addresses). The transcript records motions to place several groups of voters on the challenged list and a final motion to sustain challenges on the remaining list. The recorder's transcript shows the final motion passed after a voice vote.

No detailed roll-call vote counts were recorded in the public transcript for most motions; where votes were taken the chair and board members voiced "aye" for approval on individual removals. Staff said the remainder of the challenged elector hearings are scheduled for June 17.