Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Voting Technology topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Petitioners urge State Election Board to define ‘vote’ for ballot‑marking devices and trigger paper backup; board agrees to work with them
Summary
Coalition for Good Governance urged the Georgia State Election Board to adopt rules saying the human‑readable text on ballots — not unreadable QR codes — constitutes the official vote and to invoke the statutory backup of hand‑marked ballots when BMDs cannot produce elector‑verifiable text. The board voted to work with petitioners and revisit the petition next week.
Coalition for Good Governance attorneys and advocates told the Georgia State Election Board on April 22 that the board must adopt rules clarifying that the human‑readable text printed by ballot‑marking devices (BMDs) — not the machine‑readable QR code — constitutes the official vote and that the board should be prepared to invoke Georgia’s statutory backup plan to use hand‑marked paper ballots when electronic equipment is "impossible or impracticable."
The petitioners, represented by counsel Robert McGuire and executive director Marilyn Marks, asked the board to amend several rules to remove ambiguity about what is counted as a vote and to specify how and when the statutory backup plan in OCGA 21‑2‑334 should be triggered. McGuire argued that the board has both the authority and the duty under the election code to define what constitutes a vote and to direct compliance when voting equipment cannot lawfully be used.
"The text portion of the paper ballot marked and printed by the electronic ballot marker indicating the elector's selection shall constitute the official ballot and shall constitute the official vote for purposes of vote tabulation," McGuire said, citing a July‑1 provision in SB 189 and related code sections. He also pointed to district court findings in the Curling litigation that, he said, showed certain BMD systems tabulate from an unreadable QR code rather than from the human‑readable text.
Marks stressed operational concerns for counties, urging the board to allow time for county education, vendor coordination and, where needed, procurement of ballot‑on‑demand printers. She also said petitioners added transitional language asking the board to avoid punitive enforcement against jurisdictions making good‑faith efforts, a clause she said petitioners would accept removing if the board prefers.
Board members pressed petitioners on legal and operational specifics: whether earlier court rulings are binding while appeals proceed; whether the board must act now or defer to the General Assembly; how counties would handle ballot printing, scanner compatibility and cybersecurity; and how accessibility for voters with disabilities would be protected. McGuire and Marks said the petition seeks to implement existing statutory standards and to give counties a clear, enforceable rule so voters can cast elector‑verifiable ballots.
After several hours of questions and discussion, the State Election Board voted to convene a working process with the petitioners and to return next week for a vote on a revised petition. The motion to work with the petitioners passed on a roll call that the chair recorded as "motion carries 3 to 2." The board did not adopt the petition at this meeting.
What happens next: the board and petitioners will exchange revisions and hold a near‑term meeting; if the board initiates rulemaking it will start the formal 30‑day notice and Legislative Council process required under state law.
