What legal standards determine whether unsigned tabulator tapes invalidate ballots under Georgia law?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Georgia law requires tabulating machines to print and have their returns certified and posted, and state election rules have long required poll tapes and zero tapes to be produced and witnessed — a procedural framework that election watchdogs say was breached in Fulton County in 2020 [1] [2] [3]. Whether an unsigned tabulator tape “invalidates” the ballots those tapes report is not a simple automatic legal nullification under the cited statutory text; rather, the absence of required signatures creates a procedural and chain‑of‑custody defect that must be remedied or adjudicated by the Secretary of State, the State Election Board or a court [1] [4] [5].
1. What the statute says: printed returns must be “certified” and posted
Georgia’s code directs that “the official returns of the votes cast on ballots at each polling place shall be printed by the tabulating machine” and that “the returns thus prepared shall be certified and promptly posted,” language that anchors the legal expectation that a printed, certified record will exist for each precinct’s tabulation [1]. The statute itself establishes the returns-and-certification obligation but does not, in the text cited by reporting, spell out an automatic doctrinal consequence — such as automatic invalidation of ballots — if the physical signatures or signed tapes are missing [1].
2. Administrative rules and practice: three tapes, zero tape, and signatures
The Secretary of State’s regulations and election operating procedures add practical detail: poll workers are required to print closing tapes and zero tapes, and longstanding guidance and procedural rules envision multiple copies and witnesses to sign to lock the chain of custody for memory cards and tabulator totals [2] [6]. Investigators and activists point to a specific rule interpreted as requiring three copies and three witnesses to sign copies of poll tapes; failure to follow those procedures is treated in the field as a substantive break in the certification process [6] [7].
3. What the Fulton County findings show about missing signatures
At a December hearing and in related state investigations the Fulton County election office acknowledged that many early‑voting tabulator tapes were not signed and that zero‑tapes and other procedural steps were not verified in a number of precincts, a concession investigators say substantiates widespread procedural violations affecting roughly 300–315,000 early votes [4] [3]. County counsel reportedly told the State Election Board the county “does not dispute” that tapes were unsigned and called it a violation of the rule, while county officials say training and procedures have been revised since 2020 [4].
4. Legal effect: procedural defect versus automatic invalidation
Advocates argue that unsigned tapes mean the votes were “uncertified” and therefore illegally certified into statewide totals, asserting an immediate legal nullification of those returns [5] [8]. The reporting indicates, however, that the statute and regulations create a certification regime that supports administrative or judicial challenges; the sources contain no binding precedent or statutory text establishing that every ballot tied to an unsigned tape is automatically void — rather, the absence of signatures is a legal and factual defect that empowers the State Election Board, the Secretary of State, or courts to investigate, order remedies, or in extreme cases set aside results after appropriate proceedings [1] [4]. In short, missing signatures are a ground to challenge and potentially invalidate results, but the invalidation is a consequence of remedial adjudication, not an immediate statutory nullity plainly declared in the cited code excerpts [1] [5].
5. Chain‑of‑custody, zero tapes, and the nature of the challenge
Investigators tie unsigned tapes to broader chain‑of‑custody worries — for example, that memory cards were removed early, that flashcards were closed on surrogate machines, and that zero tapes (establishing a starting “zero” count) were not verified — conditions that amplify the legal stakes because they affect whether a printed total can be relied on as the authentic precinct return [6] [9]. Those factual allegations, if proven, strengthen a legal case that required certification procedures were not followed; the reporting shows activists have used open‑records evidence and administrative complaints to press the point before the Georgia State Election Board [9] [3].
6. Limits of the reporting and competing views
The available reporting shows admissions of unsigned tapes and substantiated procedural violations in the Secretary of State’s review and in testimony, and it captures activist claims that unsigned tapes render the votes “uncertified” [4] [5]. What is not contained in these sources is a definitive court ruling or statutory clause that states unsigned tabulator tapes automatically invalidate ballots without further administrative or judicial process; therefore, the legal standard in practice is a mix of statutory certification requirements, administrative rules about tapes and signatures, factual chain‑of‑custody proof, and adjudicative determination — not an instant voiding by rote [1] [2] [5].