Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Election Administration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Georgia State Election Board denies petition to mandate backup voting system and definition changes
Summary
The State Election Board voted 4–1 on May 1 to deny a petition seeking rule changes that would require an ‘authorized backup system’ and alter how a “vote” is defined; petitioner Marilyn Marks urged action citing a Dominion software issue and ballot secrecy concerns.
A special meeting of the Georgia State Election Board on May 1 ended with the board voting 4–1 to deny a petition that would have amended rules to define a ‘vote’ and require use of an authorized backup voting system.
The petition, submitted by Coalition Good for Good Governance and presented by Marilyn Marks, asked the board to initiate rulemaking and to require changes tied to ballot secrecy, logic and accuracy testing, and a software update for Dominion Voting Systems. Marks urged the board to start a 30‑day public comment period and to invite local election officials, vendors, the Secretary of State and legislative oversight committees to provide input.
"What we're asking today is to initiate the 30 day period for rulemaking public comment," Marilyn Marks told the board, and she argued the current software creates "traceable ballots" that risk voter secrecy and must be addressed, including through deployment of a Dominion software update she said the state had not installed.
Chairman Praveer moved to deny the petition, saying the board lacked statutory authority for the broad changes the petition requested. "My motion is that this petition be denied," the chair said, adding that the petition "is not grounded in statute, and the board does not have the authority to make this change."
Board members debated whether the petition sought rule changes that would, in effect, alter the state's primary voting method and whether the board could set effective dates on rules to allow for transition. Members also discussed SB 189 and other statutory requirements for human‑readable vote records raised in the presentation.
After the motion, the board called votes in order of seniority. The transcript records the result as 4–1 to deny the petition.
Why it matters: The petition would have required the board to adopt a rule clarifying what constitutes a vote and to move toward a backup, human‑readable system the petitioner says is necessary to preserve ballot secrecy. Denial means no immediate rulemaking; proponents may pursue other avenues or seek future consideration.
Next steps: The board did not advance the petition; members who asked for more information indicated they would continue to seek details from counties and the Secretary of State about implementation and legal implications before taking further action.
