Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the SEB Independence And Voter Rolls topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenters urge stronger SEB independence, cite withheld data and duplicate registrations
Summary
Multiple residents told the State Election Board it should be fully independent, complained that the Secretary of State has impeded investigators, and urged standardized processes to address duplicate registrations and voter‑roll maintenance.
Get email alerts on the SEB Independence And Voter Rolls topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Several members of the public used the board’s comment period to press for a fully independent State Election Board and to raise practical concerns about voter rolls and double registrations.
Victoria Cruz, a 28‑year resident of Oconee County, told the board that the current Secretary of State had “repeatedly undermined the SEB, withholding data from its investigators, delay or deny funding and support, blocking case presentations at meetings, and publicly opposing the board’s transparency and accuracy efforts.” She urged the General Assembly to ensure the board receives funding and autonomy so it can function independently.
Steve Nelser said Georgia “needs a state election board that operates free from political interference” and warned that removing the board’s public forum would raise serious concerns about who controls election outcomes. Jason Frazier described widespread duplicate registrations and asked the board to help set a statewide, standardized process for submitting challenges with reliable evidence such as full legal name, date of birth and matching out‑of‑state records.
Other commenters defended routine election procedures. Ralph O’Connor, an election‑day poll clerk, described chain‑of‑custody procedures at his precinct, said Fulton County posts operation reports that show roll maintenance (he said one recent report listed over 1,100 duplicate removals), and pushed back on claims that rolls were never cleaned.
The board did not take formal action on these public comments during the meeting; the testimony provides context for broader calls by citizens and some board members for clearer procedures and more independence in oversight.

