Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Election Administration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State Election Board adopts new certification standard and tougher absentee‑return rules after heated debate
Summary
After extended argument and dozens of public comments, the board narrowly approved a rule defining certification as an attestation made "after reasonable and diligent inquiry" and separately approved tighter rules for chain‑of‑custody and video retention for dropboxes; opponents said both moves risk exceeding statutory authority and could be exploited to delay results.
The State Election Board voted on Aug. 6 to adopt two contested rule changes: one aimed at clarifying what counties must review before certifying election results, and another to strengthen chain‑of‑custody and surveillance requirements for absentee ballot returns and dropboxes.
The certification proposal, introduced by board petitioner Mr Heins, would define certification as an attestation that, “after reasonable and diligent inquiry,” the tabulation and canvass are complete and accurate. Heins and supporters said the definition provides practical guardrails for board members and local superintendents who must sign statutory affidavits and face a compressed timetable after Election Day. Heins read language modeled on guidance from the U.S. Election Assistance Commission and argued that reasonable inquiry simply requires checking that returns and related precinct documents are in proper form before signing.
Opponents, including civil‑rights groups and election‑law commentators, argued the change would insert discretionary authority that Georgia statute and Georgia Supreme Court precedent treat as ministerial. Mel Sus, counsel for a coalition of watchdog groups, told the board the proposed language "would exceed the board's rulemaking authority" because the election code prescribes precisely which tasks and limited discretion county superintendents have. ACLU of Georgia and other groups warned the undefined term "reasonable inquiry" could be used to delay certification or be applied unevenly across counties.
After extended debate and a large volume of written and oral public comment, the board voted to adopt the certification language (the vote recorded in the transcript as a narrow result). Supporters said the rule clarifies expectations for what local boards should review before signing; opponents said it risks litigation and urged legislative clarification instead.
On a related matter, petitioner Sally Grubs proposed rules that would require documentation when a third party returns an absentee ballot and strengthen dropbox surveillance and retention periods. Grubs framed her petition as a chain‑of‑custody and security measure: when a person delivers another voter's ballot, the recipient should record an identifying credential and a custody record rather than relying on informal practice. Grubs also asked the board to require continuous video surveillance of dropboxes with extended retention of footage for investigations.
County election directors and civil‑liberties advocates raised operational and legal concerns: (1) many aspects of absentee processing are governed by separate statutory provisions; (2) requiring ID or creating a new provisional category for some returns could conflict with existing law; and (3) long footage retention imposes storage costs on counties. Election supervisors described local practices (stickers, check‑in logs, limited retention) and warned a uniform two‑year retention requirement could strain budgets and systems.
The board adopted the dropbox/return rule after debate and public comment; the transcript records the motion as carried by a split vote. The board and county officials noted the rule still must be implemented via formal rulemaking steps where counties can comment and seek clarifications.
Why it matters: Both rules change how local election administrators and board members would document and verify parts of the canvass and absentee processing. Supporters say the rules increase transparency and give board members clearer, defensible standards before they sign certification affidavits; opponents say the rules risk introducing discretion that the election code does not authorize and could become a vehicle for partisan obstruction or litigation.
Next steps: The board’s adopted language will be published in accordance with the administrative rulemaking process and is subject to the formal timelines for public comment and legislative committee review. County election officials signaled they will ask for implementation guidance and, where necessary, legislative fixes to remove ambiguity.
