(Rightallegiance.com) – A Georgia judge ruled that local election board members cannot refuse to certify election results, even if they claim concerns over fraud or errors, emphasizing that the certification process is not discretionary under state law. Fulton County Superior Judge Robert McBurney clarified in his decision, issued on Tuesday, that Georgia voters must not be silenced by individual judgments on election outcomes.
“If election superintendents were, as Plaintiff urges, free to play investigator, prosecutor, jury, and judge — refusing to certify election results due to a unilateral determination of error or fraud — Georgia voters would be silenced,” McBurney wrote. “Our Constitution and Election Code do not permit that outcome.”
This ruling comes after several Republican election board members in the state declined to certify primary election results earlier this year. Their actions followed the introduction of new rules from the Georgia State Election Board that appeared to offer local officials some discretion. However, Georgia’s Republican Secretary of State has consistently emphasized that under Georgia law, certification is mandatory.
Julie Adams, a Republican member of the Fulton County Board of Elections, was one of the local officials who had repeatedly refused to certify elections this year. She sought a legal ruling that would define her certification duties as optional, but McBurney rejected this interpretation. However, the legality of the State Election Board’s recent rules remains undecided, as they face multiple challenges in court.
New Election Rules and Their Impact
The State Election Board had introduced rules requiring local boards to conduct a “reasonable inquiry” into the accuracy of the election count before certifying results. Another rule stipulates that election board members must be granted access to all relevant election documents prior to certification. Several Democratic officials, voters, and groups, including the Democratic Party of Georgia, have filed lawsuits seeking to overturn these rules. They argue that under state law, the duty to certify is absolute, and board members should not be granted any discretion in the matter.
Election certification is a key step in the process leading up to the Electoral College vote. Any attempts to delay or block certification, even if unsuccessful, could lead to significant disruptions and contribute to public distrust in election integrity. This is particularly concerning in Georgia, a pivotal swing state, where election outcomes can have national implications.
Criticism of the State Election Board’s rule changes has come from both sides of the political spectrum. Some Democrats, along with local election officials, have expressed concerns about the rushed nature of the changes, noting the challenges in adequately preparing poll workers. Even Georgia’s Republican Secretary of State and Attorney General have voiced opposition. Former President Donald Trump, however, has praised the reforms.
Court Battles over Certification
One rule that has drawn legal scrutiny requires poll workers to hand-count ballots cast on Election Day in each precinct. This measure, approved in September, is among several facing lawsuits. As court challenges unfold, lawyers on both sides of the debate acknowledge that state law requires certification of election results by a specified deadline. However, the core issue in court is whether the judiciary should impose stricter limits on local election officials who might resist compliance.
“We’re going to assume that public officials are going to fulfill their duty in good faith,” said Elizabeth Young, the state’s senior assistant attorney general, during a two-hour court session. “You do your best and you certify, and you turn over any unresolved issues to the district attorney.”
Judge McBurney expressed skepticism about this assumption, citing real-life instances where election board members in Georgia, including those in Fulton County, had refused to certify results. He questioned when the presumption of good faith would need to be re-evaluated in light of such examples.
Attorneys challenging the State Election Board’s rules sought a definitive ruling that would eliminate any doubt about local election boards’ obligation to certify results.
The Case of Julie Adams
On the same day as the ruling, McBurney heard arguments in a separate case involving Julie Adams, the Fulton County election board member. Represented by a lawyer from the Trump-aligned America First Policy Institute, Adams argued that individual board members should be allowed to vote against certification or choose not to certify specific groups of votes if there were concerns about their accuracy.
In his ruling, McBurney agreed that election board members should have access to any election-related information necessary to fulfill their duties. However, he made it clear that withholding certification on the grounds of not receiving certain information is not permissible.
“Election superintendents have a range of responsibilities, including rule-making, personnel management, logistics, and finance,” McBurney wrote. “While many of these duties involve discretion, some, like certifying election results, must be completed according to established procedures and deadlines.”
He further explained that while superintendents are required to investigate concerns about miscounts and report them to a prosecutor if necessary, these concerns alone do not justify delaying or refusing certification.
The ruling is likely to face appeals, leaving the possibility of further litigation as Election Day draws near.