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.

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

An oversized ballot box surrounded by people.

Young people worldwide form new parties to reshape politics—yet America’s two-party system blocks them.

Getty Images, J Studios

No Country for Young Politicians—and How To Fix That

In democracies around the world, young people have started new political parties whenever the establishment has sidelined their views or excluded them from policymaking. These parties have sometimes reinvigorated political competition, compelled established parties to take previously neglected issues seriously, or encouraged incumbent leaders to find better ways to include and reach out to young voters.

In Europe, a trio in their twenties started Volt in 2017 as a pan-European response to Brexit, and the party has managed to win seats in the European Parliament and in some national legislatures. In Germany, young people concerned about climate change created Klimaliste, a party committed to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as per the Paris Agreement. Although the party hasn’t won seats at the federal level, they have managed to win some municipal elections. In Chile, leaders of the 2011 student protests, who then won seats as independent candidates, created political parties like Revolución Democrática and Convergencia Social to institutionalize their movements. In 2022, one of these former student leaders, Gabriel Boric, became the president of Chile at 36 years old.

Keep ReadingShow less
How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

Demonstrators gather outside of The United States Supreme Court during an oral arguments in Gill v. Whitford to call for an end to partisan gerrymandering on October 3, 2017 in Washington, DC

Getty Images, Olivier Douliery

How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground. ~ Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Col. Edward Carrington, Paris, 27 May 1788

The Problem We Face

The U.S. House of Representatives was designed as the chamber of Congress most directly tethered to the people. Article I of the Constitution mandates that seats be apportioned among the states according to population and that members face election every two years—design features meant to keep representatives responsive to shifting public sentiment. Unlike the Senate, which prioritizes state sovereignty and representation, the House translates raw population counts into political voice: each House district is to contain roughly the same number of residents, ensuring that every citizen’s vote carries comparable weight. In principle, then, the House serves as the nation’s demographic mirror, channeling the diverse preferences of the electorate into lawmaking and acting as a safeguard against unresponsive or oligarchic governance.

Nationally, the mismatch between the overall popular vote and the partisan split in House seats is small, with less than a 1% tilt. But state-level results tell a different story. Take Connecticut: Democrats hold all five seats despite Republicans winning over 40% of the statewide vote. In Oklahoma, the inverse occurs—Republicans control every seat even though Democrats consistently earn around 40% of the vote.

Keep ReadingShow less
Once Again, Politicians Are Choosing Their Voters. It’s Time for Voters To Choose Back.
A pile of political buttons sitting on top of a table

Once Again, Politicians Are Choosing Their Voters. It’s Time for Voters To Choose Back.

Once again, politicians are trying to choose their voters to guarantee their own victories before the first ballot is cast.

In the latest round of redistricting wars, Texas Republicans are attempting a rare mid-decade redistricting to boost their advantage ahead of the 2026 midterms, and Democratic governors in California and New York are signaling they’re ready to “fight fire with fire” with their own partisan gerrymanders.

Keep ReadingShow less
Stolen Land, Stolen Votes: Native Americans Defending the VRA Protects Us All – and We Should Support Them

Wilson Deschine sits at the "be my voice" voter registration stand at the Navajo Nation annual rodeo, in Window Rock.

Getty Images, David Howells

Stolen Land, Stolen Votes: Native Americans Defending the VRA Protects Us All – and We Should Support Them

On July 24, the Supreme Court temporarily blocked a Circuit Court order in a far-reaching case that could affect the voting rights of all Americans. Native American tribes and individuals filed the case as part of their centuries-old fight for rights in their own land.

The underlying subject of the case confronts racial gerrymandering against America’s first inhabitants, where North Dakota’s 2021 redistricting reduced Native Americans’ chances of electing up to three state representatives to just one. The specific issue that the Supreme Court may consider, if it accepts hearing the case, is whether individuals and associations can seek justice under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). That is because the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, contradicting other courts, said that individuals do not have standing to bring Section 2 cases.

Keep ReadingShow less