What specific procedural errors were documented in Fulton County’s 2020 ballot handling and what reforms were recommended?
Executive summary
Fulton County’s handling of the 2020 election was found to include multiple documented procedural lapses—most prominently a large set of unsigned tabulator tapes covering roughly 315,000 early in‑person votes, missing or misfiled tapes, failures to verify zero tapes, duplicate or duplicated ballot images, and errors uncovered in a rushed post‑election audit—and state authorities ordered corrective steps including new procedures, enhanced training, audit reforms, and legal referrals to address absentee‑ballot processing failures [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. County officials and the Secretary of State have emphasized that subsequent recounts and audits confirmed the outcome and that the county adopted new standard operating procedures and training to prevent recurrence, while critics argue the scale of paperwork lapses undermined chain‑of‑custody practices [6] [7] [8].
1. The core procedural errors: unsigned tabulator tapes and missing records
The most prominent admission was that more than 130 tabulator tapes—paper “receipts” produced by ballot scanners—were not signed as required, which Fulton County calculated encompassed roughly 315,000 advanced in‑person ballots, a direct violation of a State Election Board rule that calls for poll managers and witnesses to sign tapes attesting to their accuracy [1] [9] [2]. Officials also acknowledged that some tabulator tapes and related documents were misfiled or misplaced during recordkeeping, prompting investigations and open‑records demands for scanned ballot images and other records [3] [2] [9].
2. Audit and recount problems: duplicate images, data entry errors and rushed procedures
A separate review and consent order documented errors during the county’s post‑election audit and recount process, including duplicated ballot images, double‑counted or misallocated votes, math and transposition errors, and data‑entry issues tied in part to a rushed six‑day risk‑limiting audit that left little time to reconcile and correct discrepancies [10] [4]. The State Election Board’s findings stressed that while these mistakes did not change the overall certified outcome, they exposed weaknesses in audit preparation, tools, and time allotted to counties [4].
3. Absentee‑ballot handling shortcomings referred for legal review
Investigators also flagged failures in absentee ballot processing: testimony showed that at least 105 absentee requests were never entered into the eNet system and that many voters reported not receiving requested absentee ballots, leading the State Election Board to refer the absentee mishandling case to the Georgia Attorney General for potential legal violations [5].
4. What authorities ordered and recommended: training, new SOPs, and audit reforms
The State Election Board and related oversight actions ordered Fulton County to “cease and desist” from repeat violations, to implement new audit procedures, and to adequately train elections staff; the county itself says it adopted new standard operating procedures, hired new leadership, invested in a new elections headquarters, and enhanced training for poll workers and poll watchers specifically to ensure tapes are printed and signed and documentation is checked when returned to the hub [4] [10] [7] [2].
5. Legal and compliance actions: document production, subpoenas, and referrals
Oversight responses have not been purely administrative: judges have ordered production of 2020 scanned ballot images and other records to the State Election Board, the county has been subject to subpoenas and estimated compliance costs, and the State Election Board referred absentee‑processing issues to the attorney general—actions intended to enforce record production and accountability [9] [6] [5].
6. Competing narratives and remaining limits of reporting
County attorneys and state officials stress that the procedural lapses were clerical and remedied since 2020, pointing out that independent audits and recounts confirmed results and that new protocols now exist [6] [7], while critics and petitioners argue unsigned or missing tapes and audit errors created unacceptable chain‑of‑custody and recordkeeping failures that demand further forensic review [8] [11]. Reporting does not, however, provide exhaustive text of the revised standard operating procedures or a line‑by‑line accounting of every corrective step taken, so specifics about the exact wording of new SOPs and how they are audited going forward are not fully detailed in the available sources [3] [2].