ATLANTA — The Georgia State Election Board, which once toiled in relative obscurity, now hosts raucous meetings where public comment spans several hours and attendees regularly heckle its members.
The shift highlights how election administration has become increasingly scrutinized and politicized, particularly in Georgia and other states that President Joe Biden flipped for Democrats in 2020. Former President Donald Trump continues to assert without proof that widespread fraud cost him the election in Georgia.
Georgia’s board, which has no direct role in determining election results, writes rules to ensure that elections run smoothly and hears complaints about alleged violations. Democrats and voting rights groups fear that a recently cemented majority of Republican partisans on the board could push the limits of state law with rules hindering the effective administration of elections and the swift certification of results.
Democrats made important gains in the 2020 election cycle in Georgia, winning two key U.S. Senate seats in addition to Biden’s narrow victory. However, state government remains dominated by Republicans — with a significant faction loyal to Trump.
“They do not like the way Georgians have been voting recently, and they apparently have no compunction with effectively taking away the citizens’ right to vote — a right to have their vote accurately counted — by screwing up the administration of elections,” said David Worley, a Democrat who served on the board for 17 years before stepping down in July 2021.
Months after Georgia’s Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger defended the 2020 election results, lawmakers from his own party removed him as chair of the State Election Board in a move many saw as retaliation. A new law this year took him off the board entirely.
Asked earlier this month about the board’s recent activity, Raffensperger didn’t mince words: “They’re a mess.”
The board has five members: one appointed by the state House, one chosen by the state Senate, one each from the Republican and Democratic parties, and a nonpartisan chair selected by the General Assembly or by the governor if the General Assembly is not in session when there is a vacancy.
Conservative media personality Janelle King was appointed by the House in May, sealing Republican partisan control. Dr. Janice Johnston, a retired obstetrician and frequent critic of elections in deeply Democratic Fulton County, was appointed by the state GOP in 2022. And Rick Jeffares, a former lawmaker close to Trump-aligned Lt. Gov. Burt Jones, was appointed earlier this year by the Senate.
“I believe when we look back on Nov. 5, 2024, we’re going to say getting to that 3-2 election integrity-minded majority on the State Election Board made sure that we had the level playing field to win this election,” state Republican Party Chairman Josh McKoon said at the party convention on May 17, the day King was appointed.
Johnston also spoke at the convention, greeted by cheers and whoops, a sign of how much election administration animates the party’s Trump-loyal base.
The other members are Democrat Sara Tindall Ghazal, a lawyer, and chair John Fervier, a Waffle House security executive. Though appointed by Republican Gov. Brian Kemp, the chair is required to refrain from partisan activity and Fervier doesn’t vote in lockstep with Johnston, Jeffares and King.
McKoon appears to be taking advantage of his party’s “three-person working majority.” Before the board’s July meeting, he sent Jeffares two rules to present, along with talking points, emails obtained by The Associated Press show.
The conservative majority has favored rules that would boost the number of poll watchers that parties and candidates can send to vote-counting centers. Supporters say those measures would ensure meaningful observation, while others worry too many observers could create chaos and allow partisans to intimidate election workers.
Other proposals center on how counties certify vote totals, which must happen before election results can be finalized. Some county election board members have refused to certify recent elections, saying they didn’t have enough information to vouch for the results. Proponents of the proposals want county officials to have access to a broad array of materials before certifying. Critics worry board members could refuse to certify until they study all the documents, which could delay finalization of statewide results.
The board’s conservative majority has also sought to reexamine the 2020 presidential election. It voted in May to reprimand Fulton County after finding that the state’s largest county likely scanned more than 3,000 ballots twice during a presidential recount, reducing Biden’s margin of victory there.
But many activists say the finding vindicates their belief that the election was flawed and shouldn’t have been certified. At the July 9 State Election Board meeting, the three most conservative members clashed with Fervier in a push to reopen the case, which could lead to further action against Fulton County. A 2021 law gave the state the ability to take over county election boards.
American Oversight, a liberal-leaning watchdog group, sued the board over a hastily called July 12 meeting where only Johnston, Jeffares and King were present, alleging it broke Georgia law on posting notice for a public meeting. It also alleged that at least three board members were required to physically be in the room, invalidating the meeting because Johnston joined remotely.
King argued it was merely a continuation of a meeting earlier that week and was properly noticed.
Marilyn Marks is executive director of the Coalition for Good Governance, which advocates for election security and transparency and has proposed numerous rules. She said the board has suffered “years of inertia” and has failed to conduct timely investigations into election law violations and voting system problems. She dismissed partisan finger-pointing, arguing there is “ample blame to go around among all factions.”
“The ‘hold-the-line’ faction’s longstanding refusal to act and fulfill their duties made this upheaval predictable,” she said. “It’s unfortunate that the new majority, while trying to address these festering issues, appears heavy-handed and biased due to their failure to engage expert legal advice on rule-making procedures.”