Georgia’s State Election Board made a decision on Tuesday to implement a new rule requiring county election officials to conduct a “reasonable inquiry” before certifying election results to the state. This decision suggests that disputes over approving election outcomes may escalate this November in Georgia, a key battleground state in the South. Proponents argue that this measure is necessary as members of county election boards must attest to the accuracy of results and should be able to verify the totals before certification.
On the other hand, opponents view this rule as a potential trigger for post-election chaos. They argue that the board is going against state law, which mandates that county officials “shall certify” results, and longstanding court precedents that limit the discretion of county officials in this matter.
House Minority Whip Sam Park, a Democratic representative from Lawrenceville, raised concerns that giving local election officials authority to pause vote counting or reject certification based on perceived irregularities could allow partisan county election boards to influence Georgia’s election results at their discretion.
The new rule will come into effect after 20 days, although it may face legal challenges. This development highlights a growing focus on the certification process, which was typically seen as an administrative formality in the past. With just 90 days remaining until the presidential campaign, similar conflicts may arise in closely divided swing states.
This decision follows previous instances where efforts were made to delay or block result certification by former President Donald Trump and his supporters. Notably, during the 2020 election, some conservative counties in Georgia and Michigan attempted to halt certification, citing unfounded claims of voter fraud.
The Democratic and voting rights groups fear that the recent board actions in Georgia could set the stage for potential disputes if a different election outcome occurs. Concerns have been raised regarding the political influence on the board, particularly by individuals aligned with Trump, which critics argue may violate the board’s own code of conduct.
Despite praise from Trump, there are concerns that the board’s alignment with partisan interests could undermine its credibility and impartiality. Board members have defended their decisions, stating that they base their choices on facts and evidence rather than political affiliations.
