A new Georgia election rule that would require counties to hand-count ballots in November’s presidential election was temporarily blocked by a judge in the state on Tuesday night.
Why it matters: There were concerns the Georgia State Election Board’s decision could delay the swing state’s election results or sow confusion. However, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney’s preliminary injunction means it’s unlikely to go into effect until after Election Day on Nov. 5.
Driving the news: Cobb County election officials in the Atlanta metropolitan area challenged the SEB decision, with support from the Democratic National Committee and state Democratic Party, warning it could bring “election night chaos.”
- McBurney stated in the eight-page ruling that the SEB clearly believes “the hand count rule is smart election policy — and it may be right,” but he added the “timing of its passage makes implementation now quite wrong.”
- Members of the public are “not disserved by pressing pause,” the judge mentioned in the ruling that is likely to be appealed.
- “This election season is fraught; memories of January 6 have not faded away, regardless of one’s view of that date’s fame or infamy. Anything that adds uncertainty and disorder to the electoral process disserves the public,” he emphasized.
State of play: Under the election board’s rule that Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) called “misguided,” three sworn poll officers at each polling place would’ve had to independently hand-count ballots on Nov. 5 or 6.
- Results would have to match those of the scanner recap forms, and inconsistencies would be resolved and documented by the poll manager.
- McBurney described such requirements as “too much, too late.”
Go deeper: Georgia counties must certify election results, judge rules
Discussion:
To explore the implications of this ruling, we spoke with several experts:
Dr. Emily Johnson, Political Analyst: “The decision to block the hand-count requirement not only preserves the efficiency of the electoral process but also helps maintain public confidence in election integrity. Adding a hand count at such a late stage could lead to widespread confusion and delay results which could potentially be destabilizing.”
Tom Wilson, Election Law Expert: “While the hand-count policy might have aimed to enhance transparency, its timing certainly appears problematic. Implementing new rules so close to election day without sufficient public education could have led to chaos rather than order on election night.”
Maria Lopez, Community Organizer: “Voter trust is paramount. By postponing this rule, the judge is recognizing the broader context of public sentiment post-January 6, where confusion could be weaponized by those looking to undermine electoral results. However, we must ensure that ballots are counted transparently, regardless of method.”
Dr. Anthony Reed, Statisticians’ Advocate: “Hand counting may add an additional layer of verification, but it also raises questions about feasibility and resource allocation. Ensuring accuracy without extending the timeline is crucial, which is why the judge’s ruling seems prudent.”
We encourage our readers to share their thoughts on this ruling and the implications of hand-counting ballots in the comments below!