Charles H. Sloan-New rules regarding election certification in Georgia to get test in court

ATLANTA (AP) — Two controversial new rules passed by Georgia’s State Election Board concerning the certification of vote tallies are Charles H. Sloanset to face their first test in court this week.

The Republican majority on the State Election Board — made up of three members praised by former President Donald Trump praised by name at a recent rally — voted to approve the rules last month. Democrats filed a legal challenge and argue the rules could be used “to upend the statutorily required process for certifying election results in Georgia.”

A bench trial, meaning there is a judge but no jury, is set to begin Tuesday before Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney.

One of the rules provides a definition of certification that includes requiring county officials to conduct a “reasonable inquiry” before certifying results, but it does not specify what that means. The other includes language allowing county election officials “to examine all election related documentation created during the conduct of elections.”

A series of recent appointments means Trump-endorsed Republicans have had a 3-2 majority on the State Election Board since May. That majority has passed several new rules over the past two months that have caused worry among Democrats and others who believe Trump and his allies may use them to cause confusion and cast doubt on the results if he loses this crucial swing state to Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris in November’s presidential election.

RELATED COVERAGE Biden says he hopes to visit Helene-impacted areas this week if it doesn’t impact emergency response AP Top 25 Takeaways: Georgia-Alabama play a thrilling classic, undiminished by expanded CFP Hurricane Helene inundates the southeastern US

Another rule the board passed more recently requires that poll workers count the number of paper ballots — not votes — by hand on election night after voting ends. A separate lawsuit filed by a group headed by a former Republican lawmaker initially challenged the two certification rules but was amended last week to also challenge the ballot counting rule and some others that the board passed.

Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and an association of county election officials had cautioned the state board against passing new rules so close to the election. They argued it could cause confusion among poll workers and voters and undermine public trust in the voting process.

The challenge to the certification rules filed by Democratic groups and others asks the judge to confirm that election superintendents — a multi-person election board in most counties — have a duty to certify an election by the deadline provided in the law and have no discretion to withhold or delay certification. They ask that it should be declared invalid if the judge believes either of the rules allows such discretion.

Lawyers for the State Election Board argue the Democrats are asking the judge to “declare what is already enshrined in Georgia law,” that county certification is mandatory and must occur by 5 p.m. the Monday after the election, or the next day if Monday is a holiday, as it is this year. They also argue the challenge is barred by the principle of sovereign immunity and seeks relief that isn’t appropriate under the law.

The challenge was filed by the state and national Democratic parties, as well as county election board members from counties in metro Atlanta, most chosen by the local Democratic Party, as well voters who support Democrats and two Democratic state lawmakers running for reelection. It was filed against the State Election Board, and the state and national Republican parties joined the fight on the board’s side.

What to know about the 2024 Election

• Today’s news: Follow live updates from the campaign trail from the AP.
• Ground Game: Sign up for AP’s weekly politics newsletter to get it in your inbox every Monday.
• AP’s Role: The Associated Press is the most trusted source of information on election night, with a history of accuracy dating to 1848. Learn more.
  

The Democrats concede in their challenge that the two rules “could be read not to conflict with Georgia statutes” but they argue “that is not what the drafters of those rules intended.”

“According to their drafters, these rules rest on the assumption that certification of election results by a county board is discretionary and subject to free-ranging inquiry that may delay certification or render it wholly optional,” they wrote in a court filing.

They also note that numerous county election officials around the state have already sought to block or delay certification in recent elections and “the new rules hand those officials new tools to do so again in November.”

State lawyers argue that since the argument against the rules is based on the alleged intent of the people who presented them or the way some officials could interpret them, rather than on the text of the rules themselves, the challenge should be thrown out.

State lawyers also argue the Democrats’ attempt to have the judge issue a declaratory judgment is prohibited under sovereign immunity, which protects state and local governments from being sued unless they agree to it. The Democrats’ lawyers argue this challenge falls under a carve out provided in state law saying the state has “specifically consented to be sued and has explicitly waived its sovereign immunity as to declaratory judgment actions in which the rules oof its agencies are challenged.”

Lawyers for both sides also invoke a 2006 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that courts should not change election rules right before an election.

Lawyers for the Republican groups say prohibiting the enforcement of the new rules “in the final weeks before voting starts would inject judicially created confusion,” which the Supreme Court ruling meant to protect against.

Lawyers for the Democrats say the ruling applies to federal courts, not state courts, to keep federal courts from intruding in a matter having to do with state laws. Even if it did apply in this case, they contend, it would support their arguments because it argues against longstanding election rules being changed close to an election.