Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Photography Rule Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State Election Board asks attorney general to weigh in on county enforcement of ballot‑photo rule
Summary
The board voted 3–0 to seek an opinion from the attorney general on whether counties may enforce a rule that bans photography or recording of voted ballots after a complainant alleged DeKalb County violated a federal court injunction limiting enforcement of the rule.
The Georgia State Election Board voted 3–0 to ask the attorney general for an opinion on whether county officials may enforce a rule that bans photography or recording of voted ballots, after a complainant told the board DeKalb County had enforced such a ban despite a federal court order.
The board moved to continue case 2024‑046 and request the attorney general’s guidance on the recording/photography issue. The motion was seconded and adopted by a 3–0 vote.
Complainant Mr. Weatherhead told the board that a U.S. district judge’s preliminary injunction had enjoined state defendants from enforcing “photography rule 2,” and he repeatedly urged the board to treat county enforcement during a DeKalb recount as a violation. Quoting language from the court order, he emphasized the court’s finding that the rule “prohibits any photography or recording of any voted ballot in public and non public forms alike.”
Agency staff disagreed with that view in their presentation. An agency official told the board that the investigator’s report found no county‑level rule requiring a geographic limitation on ballot access and said in this instance the prior injunction was no longer in effect because the case that produced it had been dismissed. The staff presentation concluded by recommending dismissal of the complaint unless the board wanted further legal guidance.
After hearing the competing positions, a board member moved to continue the case and request an opinion from the attorney general specifically about recording and the scope of enforcement described in the file. The motion record names a second; the board then voted to refer the legal question to the attorney general and to keep the case open pending that opinion.
The board’s request does not itself impose penalties; it asks the attorney general to advise on whether enforcement at the county level would violate federal court orders or state law. The board recorded the outcome as a 3–0 vote in favor of seeking the opinion.
Next steps: the board said it would await the attorney general’s formal opinion before taking further enforcement action in case 2024‑046.
