315000 ballots
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Fulton County officials acknowledged at a December 9, 2025 hearing that roughly 315,000 early-vote tabulator tapes from the 2020 general election lacked the required poll-worker signatures yet were nevertheless included in the county’s certified results, a procedural admission that has reignited debate about certification rules and the integrity of the 2020 count [1] [2]. Local authorities describe the problem as a clerical error that does not alter the legality or validity of the votes cast, while critics argue the absence of signatures renders the tapes uncertified under state rules and therefore raises serious chain‑of‑custody questions [2] [3].
1. The admission: what Fulton County actually said
At a Georgia State Election Board (SEB) hearing, Fulton County’s attorney acknowledged that many tabulator tape copies did not bear the three required signatures — the poll manager plus two witnesses — that Georgia rule 183‑1‑12‑.12 mandates, and county representatives described the lapse as an administrative error from 2020 that they have since addressed through training and review procedures [1] [2]. Reporting that summarized the hearing states the figure involved is approximately 315,000 early votes whose tabulator tapes were signed improperly or unsigned yet were included in the county’s certified totals [1] [4].
2. Legal and technical significance of missing signatures
Georgia election regulation requires signed tabulator tapes as part of the official record; some legal commentators and conservative outlets argue that when those signatures are absent the related ballots are “uncertified” and, by definition, improperly included in results [2] [3]. State officials including Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger counter that missing signatures at the end of a long election day constitute clerical errors that do not negate that voters were verified, that ballots were lawfully cast, or that overall results stand — a distinction that frames whether this is a procedural lapse or a disqualifying legal defect [2].
3. Competing narratives: error, or evidence of broader failure?
Conservative publications and opinion sites seized on the admission as validation of long‑running claims about 2020 irregularities and a basis for legal or political challenges, emphasizing the numeric scale — over 300,000 ballots — to argue for systemic failure [3] [5] [4]. Meanwhile mainstream local reporting and the county’s counsel framed the episode as a discrete administrative breakdown, with Fulton’s representatives pointing to remedial steps taken and to audits that found errors but not margins sufficient to change outcomes in prior reviews [2] [5].
4. Context: how this fits into broader election‑administration patterns
Election administration experts note that signature verification and chain‑of‑custody paperwork have been recurring friction points nationwide; for example, mail ballots are often rejected for missing or mismatched signatures, and roughly 1.2 million mail ballots were rejected in recent cycles for signature problems — illustrating how human processes, not machines, frequently drive disputes about validity [6]. The Fulton disclosure sits within that larger administrative vulnerability: procedural noncompliance can be routine, consequential only when it affects margins, and politically explosive when linked to high‑stakes contests [6].
5. What remains unresolved and what to watch next
Key open questions include whether the SEB or courts will interpret unsigned tabulator tapes as legally fatal to those ballots or merely clerical lapses, what forensic record remains for independent review, and whether state or federal probes will pursue broader chain‑of‑custody audits; existing reporting shows the county claims to have initiated internal fixes but does not establish that any ballots were altered or that final outcomes would change [2] [1]. Reporting to date derives from the SEB hearing transcript and local coverage; there is no definitive court ruling published in these sources that declares the impact on election results, so conclusions about legal nullification would exceed the available record [1] [2].