Georgia judge highlights the necessity of clarifying the 'ambiguous' recently introduced election certification guideline
Federal and state Democrats have taken legal action against the Republican-led Georgia State Electoral Board over a set of guidelines enacted in August. These regulations require county election officials to conduct a thorough investigation into voting results before they are certified and allow for the examination of all relevant documentation connected to the election before results are declared.
During a trial on this case earlier this week, Judge Robert McBurney of the Fulton County Superior Court observed that the "reasonable inquiry" rule is vague and needs clarification. He also expressed concern over the board changing election regulations so near to the upcoming election, stating that "new rules seem to appear every 20 minutes."
Republicans intervened in the trial to defend the new guidelines, arguing that the court's hands are tied due to a judicial principle set forth in the 2006 Supreme Court case, Purcell v. Gonzalez. In this case, the high court stated that federal courts should not alter rules "on the eve of an election." However, McBurney pointed out that this puts the court in a predicament if the rules should not have been approved in the first place.
Last month, three allies of former President Trump on the board approved a rule requiring counties to manually count the number of ballots cast at polling locations on Election Day. Democrats filed a lawsuit against this new rule on Monday.
Despite agreeing that clarification is needed for the "reasonable inquiry" rule, Judge McBurney seemed skeptical of Democrats' claim that the "examination rule" will disrupt the certification process, which must be completed by November 12.
"This seems to be a permissive rule, and I struggle to see how that presents uncertainty to anyone because it grants access but does not obligate anyone to perform any action. It states you may, not that you must," McBurney noted.
At the start of the trial, attorneys for all involved parties concurred that certification must be completed by 5:00 p.m. on November 12, as required by state law. Democrats, however, are still arguing that a ruling should prevent county election officials from refusing to certify the election results under the new rules.
The lawsuit is one of the most closely watched pre-election disputes, with Democrats warning that if the rules are permitted, they will create "chaos" throughout the critical battleground state in the time period following the election, when county election officials have a limited window of time to certify presidential contest results.
Neither side is expected to have the final say in the matter, as appeals are likely to be filed against unfavorable rulings. The lawsuit, which is backed by Vice President Kamala Harris' campaign, underscores ongoing concerns from Democrats about the possibility of Trump supporters attempting to manipulate this year's results if he loses the state again.
At the heart of the case are claims by the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Party of Georgia, and others that the new regulations conflict with state law stating that local officials have a mandated duty to certify election results by November 12. The new regulations, they argue, weaken this duty by granting officials broad authority to postpone or opt out of certifying the results "in pursuit of alleged election irregularities."
The Democrats contend that the State Elections Board exceeded its authority by transferring responsibility for investigating election fraud and misconduct from state courts to partisan local officials.
"County-level discretion over certification is not necessary to address misconduct, fraud, or error; a swift, orderly, and evidence-based judicial process exists to do so instead," argued attorneys for the rule's opponents in court documents.
The plaintiffs are requesting that Judge McBurney confirm that the duty of county superintendents to certify election results by the statutory deadline is mandatory and invalidate the new regulations if he concludes that state law does not allow for the withholding or postponement of certification.
The attorneys also assert that the Democrats' concerns relate to potential "future contingencies" that do not meet the legal threshold to initiate the lawsuit in the first place. The Republican National Committee and state GOP party, which both intervened in the case to defend the regulations, similarly claim that there is no live controversy for the court to address.
CNN's Jason Morris and Sara Murray contributed to this report.
The ongoing legal dispute between Democrats and Republicans in Georgia revolves around politics, as Democrats are challenging the new election regulations enacted by the Republican-led State Electoral Board. Despite the court's judicial principle limiting changes to election rules close to an election, Democrats argue that the new rules could lead to chaos and manipulation if they're permitted.
