Georgia Board of Registration and Elections ( BRE ) members are tangled between a rock and a hard place because of Democrats ‘ most recent intimidation strategies. BRE members are required to monitor election procedures as well as the director, as required by Georgia rules.
However, BRE members face unwarranted pressure to confirm the election in the event that there are known issues with chain of custody, significant evidence is withheld, or several legally required election methods were violated and neglected.
It makes no difference that the Georgia poll code mandates that BRE users have a responsibility to “inspect systematic and extensively” the conduct of elections” to the extent that primaries and elections may be conducted honestly, effectively, and uniformly.” They may also guarantee or face legal effects.
A rule proposal, which provides a clearer order and mandates that certification take place “in the manner required by the chapter,” has been thankfully submitted to the Georgia State Election Board ( SEB ). Adopting the proposed law would support overcome any confusions in knowledge because it would reference the entire book and emphasize that documentation is a component of a process rather than a standalone one- and done.
Recent reporting has focused more on the part of documentation, with both local and national media aggressively suggesting that BRE members ‘ participation in qualification is symbolic. Members of the national news media, including Rachel Maddow, were criticized for their refusal to confirm in Georgia’s November provincial vote.
Some have suggested that prosecuted election officials could be used to verify voter credentials. As if that were n’t enough intimidating, the Democratic Party of Georgia ( DPG) targeted letters also sent out urging the same thing. For table people trying to follow the rules, it’s a lose- lose condition.
To defend their position, business news sources and the DPG point to the election site’s language that says that panel people” may” certify the election. However, this view is flawed. A specific deadline is always required for any certifying need that committee members are aware of. When all other duties and procedures in the act are addressed, it is only after committee members have been given the required certification.
No one should anticipate committee members certifying the election before the results are tabulated, for instance. That would be immoral. Ok, there is a timing issue of the same nature. Election officials are under overrequited pressure due to recent comments regarding the role of documentation before conducting proper confirmation, which is a constitutionally questionable course of action.
In another case, BRE members are required to check that the number of votes cast matches the number of persons who cast their votes before the results are recorded. The law mandates that voting records be kept separate until the issue is investigated and resolved if these numbers do n’t match. If the numbers do not match, and the problem has not been resolved, how are BRE members supposed to agree with this legislation and the public’s place of involuntary documentation?
The answer is they ca n’t. If Fulton County election officials had reconciled the ballot numbers in accordance with the law in 2020, the county would have discovered the 3, 000 duplicate votes that were accidentally counted in the general election.
Of course, there are inappropriate reasons to fail to certify the election. Only then shall” shall” BRE members certify the election if the prescribed procedure is complete and all their duties have been fulfilled. This prevents BRE members from omitting the election for political or obstructive reasons. A BRE member has no right to refuse to confirm the election because he is unhappy with the outcome or has unwarranted suspicions.
Not bre members’ blatantly useless county boards ‘ representatives. They are reputable public servants who are dedicated to ensuring the legitimate exercise of one of our nation’s most revered rights and traditions. Election officials are shackled by the practice of certifying as a ministerial task, which is a significant duty we have given them.
The adoption of a rule that requires certification to take place “in the manner required by the chapter” could stop election officials from being intimidated into certifying without carrying out their duties as a result of the rise in partisan reports pushing for illogical procedures that cheapen election security.
This week’s SEB meeting will be the vote-in on these rules. Hopefully, the board will cast a ballot that will ensure county board members ‘ job and maintains consistency in the election code.
The national Election Protection Project of the Texas Public Policy Foundation employs policy analysts.
