Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Experts pan Georgia’s hand-count rule as we prep for Election Overtime

Georgia voting stickers
Megan Varner/Getty Images

On Sept. 17, Georgia’s election board voted to hand-count all ballots cast at polling places across the state’s 159 counties on Election Day, contrary to the legal opinion of the Georgia attorney general and the advice of the secretary of state.

Attorney General Chris Carr, a Republican, challenged the validity of the decision in a letter to the elections board:

"There are thus no provisions in the statutes cited in support of these proposed rules that permit counting the number of ballots by hand at the precinct level prior to delivery to the election superintendent for tabulation. Accordingly, these proposed rules are not tethered to any statute — and are, therefore, likely the precise type of impermissible legislation that agencies cannot do."

Election Board Chairman John Fervier, a Republican, voted against the rule change, saying the "overwhelming number of election officials" who reached out to him were opposed to the change and passing the measure would be ignoring the advice of the board’s counsel.

"I do think it's too close to the election," Fervier said. "It's too late to train a lot of poll workers."

An important fact about this ruling has not been very clear in press coverage: The rule requires counting the number of ballots, to check that the total matches the number shown on tabulators, not the votes. It does not mean officials will hand count the votes for different candidates in all the different races. Nevertheless, this new rule threatens to inject delay and confusion into what should be a standard process. Georgia law has clear deadlines for state and local certification — deadlines that may be threatened by the new requirements.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

A number of independent elections experts have spoken out against the board’s ruling.

Damon Hewitt, president and executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law:

“This move by the Georgia Election Board appears to be yet another in a series of ploys to endanger our democratic process. Requiring hand-counting of all votes cast in every polling place across Georgia on Election Day serves no one except those who want to promote chaos. The rule is contrary to Georgia law and risks delaying the counting of the votes to the extent that Georgia could miss the certification deadline for the presidential election. Rather than ensuring the accuracy of the vote, the State Election Board’s action may lead to the votes of every Georgian not counting at all in this consequential election. That is the antithesis of democracy.”

Kevin Johnson, executive director of the Election Reformers Network:

“Unfortunately, there are questions that arise about motivation and partisanship behind this ruling, given the unethical decision by a Board member to attend a campaign rally in support of a presidential candidate. Boards need to be seen as neutral, and Georgia and other states probably need to consider reforms to the structure and ethics of election boards to achieve that neutrality.”

The situation is fluid and the final process is unclear. The Fulcrum will watch in the coming weeks as the specifics of the new hand counting process unfolds as a part of our Election Overtime coverage. Between now and the conclusion of the presidential election, we will counter false narratives about elections being corrupt or stolen.

We understand the public will need a deep understanding of the rules of “election overtime” and through our partnership with the Election Reformers Network we will serve as a valuable resource to provide our readers with up-to-date, accurate information as to how the process of validating close elections works.

“The more people know about the rules of elections, the more they see the guardrails that protect results,” Johnson said. “That’s true in the case of the Georgia Board as well. Georgia law is very clear about the deadlines for state and local certification, and that creates legal avenues to challenge any rules that could put timely election results in Georgia in jeopardy.”

Read More

MERGER: The Organization that Brought Ranked Choice Voting and Ended SuperPACs in Maine Joins California’s Nonpartisan Primary Pioneers

A check mark and hands.

Photo by Allison Saeng on Unsplash. Unsplash+ License obtained by the author.

MERGER: The Organization that Brought Ranked Choice Voting and Ended SuperPACs in Maine Joins California’s Nonpartisan Primary Pioneers

Originally published by Independent Voter News.

Today, I am proud to share an exciting milestone in my journey as an advocate for democracy and electoral reform.

Keep ReadingShow less
Half-Baked Alaska

A photo of multiple checked boxes.

Getty Images / Thanakorn Lappattaranan

Half-Baked Alaska

This past year’s elections saw a number of state ballot initiatives of great national interest, which proposed the adoption of two “unusual” election systems for state and federal offices. Pairing open nonpartisan primaries with a general election using ranked choice voting, these reforms were rejected by the citizens of Colorado, Idaho, and Nevada. The citizens of Alaska, however, who were the first to adopt this dual system in 2020, narrowly confirmed their choice after an attempt to repeal it in November.

Ranked choice voting, used in Alaska’s general elections, allows voters to rank their candidate choices on their ballot and then has multiple rounds of voting until one candidate emerges with a majority of the final vote and is declared the winner. This more representative result is guaranteed because in each round the weakest candidate is dropped, and the votes of that candidate’s supporters automatically transfer to their next highest choice. Alaska thereby became the second state after Maine to use ranked choice voting for its state and federal elections, and both have had great success in their use.

Keep ReadingShow less
Top-Two Primaries Under the Microscope

The United States Supreme Court.

Getty Images / Rudy Sulgan

Top-Two Primaries Under the Microscope

Fourteen years ago, after the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the popular blanket primary system, Californians voted to replace the deeply unpopular closed primary that replaced it with a top-two system. Since then, Democratic Party insiders, Republican Party insiders, minor political parties, and many national reform and good government groups, have tried (and failed) to deep-six the system because the public overwhelmingly supports it (over 60% every year it’s polled).

Now, three minor political parties, who opposed the reform from the start and have unsuccessfully sued previously, are once again trying to overturn it. The Peace and Freedom Party, the Green Party, and the Libertarian Party have teamed up to file a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Their brief repeats the same argument that the courts have previously rejected—that the top-two system discriminates against parties and deprives voters of choice by not guaranteeing every party a place on the November ballot.

Keep ReadingShow less
Ranked Choice Voting May Be a Stepping Stone to Proportional Representation

Someone filling out a ballot.

Getty Images / Hill Street Studios

Ranked Choice Voting May Be a Stepping Stone to Proportional Representation

In the 2024 U.S. election, several states did not pass ballot initiatives to implement Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) despite strong majority support from voters under 65. Still, RCV was defended in Alaska, passed by a landslide in Washington, D.C., and has earned majority support in 31 straight pro-RCV city ballot measures. Still, some critics of RCV argue that it does not enhance and promote democratic principles as much as forms of proportional representation (PR), as commonly used throughout Europe and Latin America.

However, in the U.S. many people have not heard of PR. The question under consideration is whether implementing RCV serves as a stepping stone to PR by building public understanding and support for reforms that move away from winner-take-all systems. Utilizing a nationally representative sample of respondents (N=1000) on the 2022 Cooperative Election Survey (CES), results show that individuals who favor RCV often also know about and back PR. When comparing other types of electoral reforms, RCV uniquely transfers into support for PR, in ways that support for nonpartisan redistricting and the national popular vote do not. These findings can inspire efforts that demonstrate how RCV may facilitate the adoption of PR in the U.S.

Keep ReadingShow less