What specific procedural errors were documented in Fulton County’s 2020 election audits and how were they addressed?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The 2020 Fulton County election audits were found to contain multiple procedural mistakes — chiefly unsigned and unverified tabulation “zero” tapes during early voting and human-data-entry errors that produced duplicated or misallocated audit tallies — which state investigators concluded were procedural failures rather than evidence of deliberate fraud, and which were addressed through a consent order, supervisory remedies, written procedures, training and outside monitoring [1] [2] [3] [4]. Fulton County officials have acknowledged some procedural lapses and the State Election Board required corrective steps while saying the audited results and machine counts still supported the certified outcome [5] [4] [6].
1. Signed tabulation tapes: a statutory paperwork lapse, not a vote flip
Investigators documented that a large number of early‑voting tabulation tapes were not signed as required by Georgia rules — the signed tapes that certify a tabulator’s beginning and ending counts were missing or unsigned at numerous advanced‑voting precincts — and county counsel told the State Election Board the county “does not dispute” that tapes were not signed for many early votes [1] [5]. Georgia’s investigation framed this as a violation of Official Election Record processes that undermined the documentary trail required to certify daily scanner activity, and county lawyers have characterized the omission as a procedural violation now remedied by new practices [1] [7].
2. Failure to verify zero tapes: chain‑of‑custody and baseline problems
The state review also found that poll workers at dozens of sites failed to verify “zero” tapes — the printouts that demonstrate a scanner starts the day at zero — which creates an inability to confirm whether residual or test data remained on memory cards before voting began, a risk flagged by investigators as a basic controls failure [1]. Officials warned that without a verified zero, observers cannot rule out leftover sample data on machines (a scenario seen in other jurisdictions), which is why the state emphasized adherence to the zero‑tape rule going forward [1].
3. Audit data‑entry mistakes and duplicate counts in the hand recount
When the state-ordered risk‑limiting audit hand recount was conducted, investigators found numerous human data‑entry errors and instances where ballots or ballot images were double counted during the audit process — errors attributed to rushed timelines, reliance on manual transcription and slow or opaque audit software that led counters to re‑enter numbers they thought had not been recorded [2] [3]. Estimates of the audit’s duplicated entries ranged in the low thousands (roughly 3,000–3,600 extra absentee votes in some tallies), but the state concluded those audit mistakes were a fractional portion of the total and did not change the certified election outcome confirmed by machine counts and the risk‑limiting audit [4] [6] [8].
4. Administrative remedies: consent order, cease‑and‑desist and monitor requirements
The State Election Board resolved its probe with a consent order that required Fulton County to cease and desist from repeat violations, adopt written procedures, improve training, and permit oversight; the board approved a letter of reprimand and ordered monitoring for subsequent elections, steps designed to prevent recurrence rather than to nullify past results [2] [9]. Officials said the county implemented new leadership, a new elections headquarters, revised standard operating procedures and staff training in the years after 2020, and the board emphasized that those changes were in place for later elections [9] [7].
5. How proponents and skeptics interpret the same findings
Advocates of election integrity point to unsigned tapes and the county’s partial acknowledgements as proof of serious legal violations that warrant further scrutiny, and some outside litigants have seized on the county’s concessions to press records lawsuits and federal inquiries [10] [11]. By contrast, state investigators, the county and independent fact‑checkers have repeatedly stressed that the documented problems were procedural and human errors in the audit process — not evidence of criminal fraud — and that implemented fixes and the underlying machine tallies supported the certified result [4] [6] [7].
6. Remaining limits of the record and open questions
Public reporting and the consent order document the procedural failures and the reforms required, but some media stories and commentators differ on the scale and legal significance of the errors, and certain new federal or civil actions seeking records continue to unfold; where the available sources do not settle disputed numerical claims or pending litigation outcomes, reporting is limited to the documented findings, the county’s remedial steps and the State Election Board’s determination [11] [12].