In a recent development, the Georgia State Election Board has decided to revisit some of its recent actions following a lawsuit accusing it of holding an illegal meeting. The board, embroiled in controversy over election administration, voted unanimously on Tuesday to discuss again on August 6 a set of proposed rules put forth by Republicans on July 12. These rules include granting more access to poll watchers during ballot counting and mandating counties to report the number of ballots received daily during early voting.
The lawsuit was filed by American Oversight, a liberal-leaning watchdog group, concerning the July 12 meeting where only three board members were present while Democratic member Sara Tindall Ghazal and nonpartisan board chair John Fervier were absent. The lawsuit alleged violations of Georgia law regarding public meeting notices and the physical presence requirement of board members.
Additionally, the board confirmed new rules proposed on July 9 with all five members present. These rules, already open for public feedback, could be finalized on August 19 after a 30-day comment period. Among the proposed rules is one allowing county election board members to review various materials before certifying election totals, raising concerns that this could delay statewide results.
During the controversial July 12 meeting, Democrats and voting activists criticized the session as illegal. Dr. Janice Johnston, a board member appointed by the state Republican Party, defended the actions, stating that they followed proper procedure and were part of ongoing discussions from a previous meeting.
The interim executive director of American Oversight, Chioma Chukwu, welcomed the decision as a victory stemming from their lawsuit but expressed ongoing worries about the board’s reconsideration of the measures. Chukwu highlighted concerns that certain rules could be used to intimidate election workers and provide undue advantage to specific candidates in upcoming elections.
State Republican Party Chairman Josh McKoon’s involvement in the appointment process of board members and communication with members before the July 9 meeting have raised additional concerns about partisan influence on the board’s decisions.