The Georgia Supreme Court voted unanimously on June 10 to invalidate four State Election Board rules that were enacted in the run-up to the 2024 general election.
The state’s high court found in the 8-0 decision that the board, which is an agency within the Georgia secretary of state’s office, exceeded its authority when it passed rules that were not authorized by state statute.
The rules related to stricter controls over counting and dropping off ballots, and verifying the integrity of election results.
Two cases were involved in the judgement: Republican National Committee v. Eternal Vigilance Action Inc. and State of Georgia v. Eternal Vigilance Action Inc.
The ruling partly reversed an Oct. 16, 2024, decision by Fulton County Superior Court Judge Thomas Cox, who found that seven challenged rules that were created by the board were “illegal, unconstitutional, and void.”
Georgia law allows the election board “to pass rules to implement and enforce the Election Code, but it cannot go beyond, change, or contradict the statutory scheme,” Chief Justice Nels Peterson wrote in the new 96-page opinion.
The board exercised “the type of unfettered discretion that we have now reiterated is constitutionally intolerable,” Peterson wrote.
The Georgia General Assembly created the board in 1964 to regulate federal, state, and county elections. Initially, the board’s authority was limited, but over time, the General Assembly gave the board more rulemaking powers, including authority to define standards as to “what constitutes a vote and what votes will be counted as a vote,” he wrote.
The board was also given authority to make rules and regulations to assure “uniformity in the practices and proceedings of superintendents, registrars, deputy registrars, poll officers, and other officials, as well as the legality and purity in all primaries and elections,” he wrote.
The Georgia Supreme Court struck down four of the seven board-approved rules that were challenged.
One provided that ballots be hand-counted by precinct workers following the closing of the polls. A second required that a person delivering an absentee ballot belonging to another person provide a signature and photo identification at the drop-off location. A third required that county election boards carry out a “reasonable inquiry” before certifying election results. A fourth gave officials the power to investigate and gain access to election-related documents when the total votes cast for a candidate exceed the number of voters, Peterson wrote.
The court left intact a rule that absentee drop boxes at early voting locations be placed under video surveillance outside of voting hours.
The high court did not rule on the legality of two of the seven challenged rules and directed the lower court to reexamine them.
One of those rules provides that the total number of votes, “as well as the specific number of early and absentee voters, be reported daily and made available on a website or in a public place accessible 24 hours a day to the public.” The other rule states that poll watchers have to be given access “to an expanded list of areas where the tabulation of votes takes place,” Peterson wrote.
The high court held that the two rules could not be challenged by the voters but noted that the lower court had determined that one of the challengers, James Hall, had standing to challenge the board rules because he was a member of a county board of elections.
Standing refers to the right of someone to sue in court. A party must show a strong enough connection to the claim to justify their participation in a lawsuit.
The lower court’s conclusion on standing was “not based on the correct legal analysis … so we vacate and remand to reconsider this issue,” Peterson wrote.
If the trial court finds that Hall has standing based on his official status, “it must then evaluate the two rules we do not consider today—the Daily Reporting Rule and the Poll Watcher Rule—to determine the validity of those rules,” he wrote.
This article by Matthew Vadum appeared June 10, 2025, in The Epoch Times.