What were the specific 2020 actions Burt Jones took regarding Georgia’s electors and how have state investigations assessed them?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Burt Jones, then a Georgia state senator and now lieutenant governor, joined several coordinated post‑2020 actions: signing a petition urging the state legislature to appoint electors, participating as one of 16 alternate (so‑called “fake”) electors who met at the Georgia Capitol on December 14, 2020, and pushing for legislative intervention after Joe Biden’s victory was certified [1] [2] [3]. State prosecutors and courts ultimately reached mixed assessments: Fulton County DA Fani Willis investigated Jones and identified him in her wider probe, but was later disqualified from pursuing him for a conflict, a special prosecutor reviewed the case and declined to file charges finding no criminal intent, and a separate civil challenge to disqualify him from office was dismissed [1] [4] [5] [6] [7].
1. What Jones actually did in late 2020
Records and contemporaneous reporting show Jones took at least three discrete actions after Georgia certified its results: he signed a December petition asking the General Assembly to “take back the power to appoint electors” and to convene a special session, he was among 16 Republicans who gathered at the state Capitol on December 14, 2020 and signed an alternate electoral certificate claiming Trump had won Georgia, and he later assisted legislative efforts and communications tied to contesting the result, including being asked to deliver a letter to then‑Vice President Pence on January 6 [1] [2] [3].
2. How Fulton County’s investigation treated Jones
Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis opened a broad criminal investigation into efforts to overturn Georgia’s results that included the fake‑electors scheme; Jones was referenced by Willis’s team and by a special purpose grand jury in that inquiry, and was identified in filings as an individual of interest or as an unindicted co‑conspirator in the larger indictment against Trump allies [4] [1]. Willis later issued a “target letter” to Jones warning he faced possible indictment, part of the same probe that produced indictments for some other participants [1] [6].
3. Judicial disqualification, recusal and transfer to a special prosecutor
Jones’s potential prosecution was materially affected by judicial findings about conflicts: a judge found Willis had a conflict because she hosted a fundraiser for Jones’s Democratic opponent, and that led to her being barred from building a case against him — an outcome that forced referral of the matter to the statewide Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council and a special prosecutor (or its executive director) to evaluate charges [1] [5] [8].
4. The special prosecutor’s conclusion and its reasoning
Peter Skandalakis, head of the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council of Georgia, reviewed the matter and announced in September 2024 that he would not pursue charges against Jones, stating Jones’s conduct appeared “within the scope of his duties as a senator,” that his alternate‑elector vote was taken in reliance on advice from attorneys and legal scholars, and that there was no evidence of criminal intent warranting further action [5] [9] [3]. Multiple outlets reported Skandalakis’s view that the case was “closed” with no prosecution to follow [6] [2] [10].
5. Counterpoints, unresolved threads and political context
That closure did not end controversy: a special purpose grand jury had recommended charges against Jones at one stage, and Willis’s broader indictment and prosecutions of other electors underscore that other participants were later criminally charged and some pleaded not guilty [3] [6] [11]. Critics argue the disqualification of Willis created an uneven path to accountability for Jones, and supporters argue the special prosecutor’s finding vindicates reliance on legal advice and legislative duties [1] [5] [9]. A civil attempt to bar Jones from office over his electors role was also dismissed by a state judge who said the plaintiffs used the wrong legal vehicle to attack those 2020 actions [7]. Reporting limitations: available sources do not provide every evidentiary detail Skandalakis considered, so assessment must rely on his public statements and the court rulings cited above [5] [6] [1].