Advocate Mehul Bansal, Jadetimes News
Adv. M. Bansal is an Advocate and a Jadetimes News Reporter covering legal new
A U.S. judge has blocked a controversial rule passed by Georgia's State Election Board that required hand counting of ballots on Election Day, ruling that the order likely violated state and federal laws while threatening to cause confusion and delays in the upcoming general election.
The ruling came from Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney, following a lawsuit filed by the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Party of Georgia. The plaintiffs argued that the newly introduced hand-count rule, set to be implemented statewide, would create chaos and unnecessarily complicate the process. They also asserted that the rule breached the federal National Voting Rights Act, which forbids significant changes to election procedures within 90 days of an election without prior clearance—a key safeguard to prevent last-minute disruptions in voting processes.
Background of the Rule and Opposition
The hand-count rule, approved by Georgia’s State Election Board in September 2024, mandated that poll workers at each precinct conduct a manual count of paper ballots at the close of voting, before any electronic tabulation could take place. The board approved the measure with a narrow 3-2 vote, with dissenting voices expressing concerns over its feasibility and legality.
The rule was met with widespread opposition from election officials and workers across the state. Cobb County’s elections director, Tate Hall, was among the most vocal critics, pointing out that the new requirement came too close to the election date, in direct conflict with the National Voting Rights Act's "quiet period" regulations. Hall noted that absentee ballots had already been mailed to military and overseas voters, marking the official start of the election process. Implementing such a significant change at this juncture, he argued, could lead to confusion and delays in processing results.
Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr also criticized the hand-count rule, asserting that it was not backed by state law. In a memo addressed to the State Election Board, Carr emphasized that the measure overstepped the board's legal authority and warned that it would likely trigger lawsuits, which, as anticipated, materialized swiftly.
Legal Breach and Court's Decision
The plaintiffs successfully argued that the State Election Board's decision violated both state and federal laws, particularly highlighting that no Georgia statute authorizes such a hand-count process. Moreover, the timing of the rule, with less than two months until Election Day, ran afoul of the 90-day pre-election restriction under the National Voting Rights Act, aimed at ensuring voting process stability.
Judge McBurney's decision to halt the order pointed out that the hand-count requirement could lead to significant logistical and procedural difficulties for election officials. He warned that the measure, if implemented, might delay the certification of election results, undermining public trust in the integrity of the process. McBurney ruled that the State Election Board had overstepped its legal bounds, noting that if the state legislature had intended for such a rule, it would have codified it explicitly in state law.
Broader Implications and Reactions
The decision was welcomed by voting rights advocates and Democratic groups, who argued that the hand-count rule would create unnecessary barriers and confusion during a critical election period. They praised the court for safeguarding the established voting procedures and preventing last-minute disruptions that could undermine the public’s confidence in the results.
However, supporters of the rule, including some conservative board members, expressed frustration at the ruling, insisting that the hand-count mandate was a necessary step to ensure the transparency of election outcomes in Georgia. Some also viewed the legal challenges as politically motivated attempts to block election reforms they deemed important for election integrity.
The ruling highlights ongoing tensions in Georgia over election administration, transparency, and security, as debates continue over the balance between ensuring fair, efficient elections and protecting voting rights. The blocked hand-count order, while a victory for some, may further fuel partisan divisions heading into future elections.
This case underscores the crucial importance of adherence to statutory authority and federal laws when proposing changes to election procedures, especially close to Election Day, as any deviation can risk legal challenges and undermine the voting process.
