State Election Board rejects cyber‑security petition that sought hand‑marked backup ballots; tables follow-up work

Marilyn Marx, executive director of the Coalition for Good Governance, urged the State Election Board on Aug. 6 to place emergency cybersecurity rules into rulemaking that would ensure counties could use hand‑marked paper backup ballots if voting systems were found to be compromised. Marx said she filed earlier, described three alternatives (a permanent heavy rule, a temporary rule and a “permanent light” revision) and pressed the board to move quickly so counties would be prepared before early voting begins Oct. 15.

"One of the things we want to ask you to do today ... is put one of these rules into rulemaking even knowing that there may still may be questions," Marx told the board, arguing that recent county cyber incidents leave Georgia at risk and that "the only way to secure November's election ... is to use handmark paper ballots" if systems cannot meet legal and federal testing requirements.

Board members questioned whether the board had authority to adopt a rule that would effectively change how voters cast in‑person ballots, noting the General Assembly's action on SB 189 and other statutes that specify ballot‑marking devices (BMDs) as the primary in‑person method. Opponents also cautioned that action by the board could overlap with ongoing federal litigation and raised concerns about inserting specific vendor‑related findings into permanent rules.

After discussion, a motion to reject the initial Marx petition was made and seconded; the board recorded the motion as carried with no opposition. Marx later returned with additional changes and alternatives; Dr. Janice Johnson moved to table the follow‑up petition and volunteer to work with Marx to refine language, and the board approved tabling and assignment for further collaboration.

What happened next: The board dismissed the original petition but left open a structured path for revision and staff consultation. Marx and board members agreed to continue work on a version of the proposal that narrows immediate changes to what can reasonably be implemented ahead of November, with any formal rulemaking to follow the administrative process and public comment.

Why it matters: Petitioners characterized recent county computer security incidents and the unauthorized distribution of software as a present operational risk that could undermine secrecy and voters' ability to verify ballots; they asked the board to use rulemaking to enable counties to invoke a statutory fallback to backup balloting. Board members and multiple outside commenters countered that Georgia law and court precedent strictly limit the scope of certificating and canvassing duties, and that major changes to voting methods risk exceeding the board's authority or generating litigation. The board's decision to reject the immediate petition but to table further work signals a compromise: urgent public concern acknowledged, while the board seeks narrower, legally vetted language before taking binding action.

Next steps: The petitioner and Dr. Janice Johnson will work with staff on revised language; any subsequent rulemaking must be formally initiated and go through the 30‑day public comment period and review by legislative committees before final adoption.