The Supreme Court of Georgia has invalidated four of the seven election rules adopted by the Republican-led State Election Board. The unanimous decision, released Tuesday, affirmed concerns that the board overstepped its authority in implementing the rules. The court specifically struck down rules related to “reasonable inquiry” before election certification, allowing election board members to examine all election documentation, requiring hand-counting of ballots after polls close, and mandating photo ID for family members dropping off absentee ballots. Only the rule requiring video surveillance of absentee drop boxes outside voting hours was upheld. The remaining two rules, concerning daily reporting of vote totals and expanded access for poll watchers, were remanded to a lower trial court to determine if plaintiffs have the legal standing to challenge them.
The lawsuit challenging the rules was brought by Eternal Vigilance Action, Inc., and individuals Scot Turner and James Hall, who argued the rules contradicted the state Election Code. Their concerns were echoed by civil rights organizations. “The ruling confirms that the State Election Board exceeded its legal authority by attempting to rewrite election procedures just weeks before a major election without legislative approval and in direct contradiction of Georgia law,” stated Gerald A. Griggs, president of the Georgia State Conference of the NAACP. The Georgia State Conference of the NAACP and the Georgia Coalition for the People’s Agenda, represented by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the law firm Morgan Lewis, praised the court’s decision.
The now-invalidated rules were adopted in August and September 2024 with the support of the three Republican members of the five-member State Election Board. The ruling is expected to have a significant impact on election procedures in Georgia. The state, along with the Republican National Committee and the Georgia Republican Party, had appealed the initial challenge, arguing that the plaintiffs lacked the standing to sue.
Comments