What specific documents and records did the Georgia Secretary of State and State Election Board examine regarding Fulton’s 2020 tabulation tapes?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The Georgia Secretary of State’s office and the State Election Board (SEB) focused their review of Fulton County’s 2020 tabulation tapes on both the physical tape receipts from tabulators and a broad set of complementary records that document chain of custody and tabulation—documents the SEB subpoena explicitly listed—while federal authorities have separately sought ballots, stubs and signature envelopes [1] [2]. Reporting shows investigators examined printed opening/closing and zero tapes, tabulation files and memory-card records, ballot images and recap sheets, but coverage leaves gaps about which exact files were physically inspected versus requested [3] [1] [4].
1. What the State Election Board subpoenaed: a checklist of records
When the SEB moved to compel Fulton County records, it sought a comprehensive package: consolidated return sheets, opening and closing tapes, daily recap sheets from early voting, poll-pad recap sheets, absentee ballot recap sheets, ballot images, log files, tabulation files, a numbered voter list and absentee numbered list of voters, absentee ballot oath envelopes, security verification forms and chain‑of‑custody forms for poll managers and technicians—items the SEB’s subpoena list and contemporaneous reporting reproduce verbatim [1].
2. Which tape-related items investigators emphasized
Investigators and challengers homed in on three tape types that Georgia law makes central to certification: zero tapes (printed at start of a voting day showing the scanner at zero), opening/closing or poll tapes (daily printed tallies tab workers must sign), and closing/recap tapes printed by scanners—documents cited repeatedly in SEB hearings and in summaries of the Secretary of State’s probe [5] [6] [7].
3. Digital records and memory cards were part of the review, too
Reporting and fact-checking note that poll tapes are only one component of the record; counties also retain memory-card data, tabulation files and ballot images that record votes and can be reconciled against tapes and recaps—items the SEB asked for and that Georgia Secretary of State staff have cited when saying vote totals remain documented even where tape signatures were missing [3] [1].
4. What third‑party requesters produced to the record
Independent challengers like David Cross said an open‑records pull produced roughly 77 megabytes of Fulton County election files including tabulator tapes (Cross’s count of 134 tabulator tapes representing ~315,000 votes is reported in multiple outlets), and those materials were presented in SEB hearings as part of the evidentiary record [4] [8]. The Secretary of State’s 2024 inquiry is reported to have “substantiated” violations in unsigned tapes at advanced voting sites, citing the same categories of tape and recap failures [5].
5. Federal parallel requests: ballots, stubs and signature envelopes
Separately, the U.S. Department of Justice sued to obtain used and void ballots, ballot stubs, signature envelopes and corresponding digital envelope files from the 2020 general election in Fulton County after local compliance issues, underscoring that the federal probe targets the underlying ballots and associated signature records rather than only printed poll tapes [2] [9] [10].
6. Competing interpretations and limits of the public record
State and county officials have acknowledged procedural lapses—Fulton counsel told the SEB the county “does not dispute that the tapes were not signed”—but have also emphasized that multiple redundant records (memory cards, official county statements, recounts) document vote totals and that missing or unsigned printed tapes do not, by themselves, prove lost or fabricated votes, a point stressed by AP and by Secretary of State spokespeople [8] [3]. Reporting does not, however, provide a granular audit trail of exactly which files were cross‑checked against which tapes during the SOS/SEB reviews, nor does it publish a complete inventory of every physical or digital file actually opened and inspected, creating a documentary limit in public reporting [1] [3].
7. Read the motivations and the reporting lens
Coverage ranges from local investigative outlets and partisan commentary emphasizing certification failures and the 315,000‑vote figure to mainstream fact‑checks contextualizing how ballots are recorded beyond poll tapes; that variation reflects differing agendas—some sources press for legal sanctions and “decertification,” others to reassure on outcome integrity—so readers should weigh both the SEB subpoena list and the AP’s explanation of redundant record systems when assessing what documents were examined and why [1] [3] [5].