The Georgia State Election Board is considering a series of last-minute changes to election administration policy that would undermine election practices for both election officials and citizens. The proposals risk creating uncertainty and instability by changing how ballots are printed, returned and counted less than 50 days before the general election. Georgia has proven its ability to handle high-pressure, high-stakes elections, but these sudden shifts threaten to erode that hard-earned trust.
The timing of election administration policy changes is critical. Election administration is complex and highly technical, requiring the coordination of thousands of election officials and volunteers. For those individuals to be successful, they need a firm understanding of election law and adequate time to implement policy changes. With less than 50 days before the election, officials would have to scramble to implement any one of the 11 proposed policy changes in front of the State Election Board.
Handout
Handout
Handout
Handout
Three proposals in particular would alter each part of the voting process, from how ballots are printed and counted to how results are reported.
One proposal would require a new printed label for absentee, provisional and emergency ballots, changing printing orders just days after ballots begin to be mailed out on Oct. 7. This change would likely delay the scheduled distribution of ballots, waste valuable time and resources, and confuse voters who might have requested an absentee ballot. Additionally, the new labels could violate a voter’s right to a secret ballot, as smaller categories for reporting results make it easier to tie a voter’s‘identity to a particular vote.
Another proposal would require poll officers to hand count the number of ballots cast before returning them to the election office. The rule requires that three separate poll officers count ballots independently and then compare each total against the others in addition to records from voter check-in and tabulator tapes. Hand counting is resource-intensive and error prone, particularly for poll officers operating under fatigue after a long day of staffing the voting site. Rather than risk errors and delay unofficial results reporting, the most efficient and accurate way to validate the number of ballots cast is to pair tabulators with robust, hand-count tabulation audits of paper ballots after every election, as Georgia law already requires.
Finally, a third proposed rule would task election administrators with comparing and reconciling the total number of ballots cast with records of who was issued a ballot prior to the reporting of any results. Election administrators already follow a comprehensive ballot reconciliation process during the weeks leading up to and after Election Day. Any discrepancies are investigated and addressed, but this process takes time. Because state law requires that election officials report absentee ballot tabulations within an hour of polls closing, the proposed rule would effectively give election officials just one hour to perform a process that normally takes days. This change risks putting election officials in a position where they’re forced to choose between abiding by the rule or missing state-mandated reporting deadlines. This compressed timeline puts undue pressure on election administrators during one of the busiest moments on Election Day, putting the accuracy of reconciliation and the timeliness of reporting at risk.
Georgians want efficient, transparent and trustworthy elections, and therein lies the core issue with the proposals before the State Election Board: though framed as improvements, these policy changes are neither necessary nor reflective of the realities facing Georgia’s election system. Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, the state’s chief election official, echoed this sentiment, stating, “last-minute changes in election procedures outside of the legislative process undermine voter confidence and burden election workers.”
The state’s election system has demonstrated its resilience in the face of intense partisan scrutiny. Further, Georgia’s elections are among the most secure and accessible in the country, according to a Bipartisan Policy Center analysis, which highlighted Georgia as one of only two states to meet 100% of its proposed minimum standards for election administration policy.
Instead of rushing these changes, legislators, election officials and citizens alike should encourage the State Election Board to prioritize stability and predictability as the general election approaches. Successfully managing and counting millions of votes requires a clear, consistent process — one that is dependent on thorough training and familiarity with state regulations. To avoid confusion and errors, the State Election Board must reject these proposals and focus instead on ensuring a stable, secure environment for election officials to do their work this November and beyond.
Joseph Kirk is the elections supervisor in Bartow County, Georgia, and a member of the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Task Force on Elections. Rachel Orey is director of the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Elections Project.
