What remedies has the Georgia State Election Board historically applied when counties violate tabulator tape procedures?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The Georgia State Election Board (SEB) has historically used administrative, supervisory and referral remedies — not unilateral decertification — when counties violate procedural rules for tabulator tapes, typically reprimanding counties, imposing independent monitors, requesting civil fines through the Attorney General, and referring potential violations for further investigation [1] [2] [3]. Recent SEB proceedings around Fulton County’s unsigned tabulator tapes have revived those same tools while exposing legal and political limits on what the board itself can order [3] [2].
1. Administrative rebukes and appointment of monitors — the board’s go‑to sanctions
When procedural lapses have been found, the SEB has opted for formal reprimands and active supervision rather than sweeping nullifications of past results: in 2024 the board voted to reprimand Fulton County and appoint an independent monitor for subsequent elections after finding violations during the 2020 recount process [1]. That pattern reflects a remedial approach focused on correcting future compliance and improving procedures instead of retroactively disturbing certified vote totals [1].
2. Referral to the Attorney General and requests for monetary penalties
The SEB has used referral and civil penalty requests as a leverage point: during the recent Fulton County matter a board member moved to “send a request to the AG’s office to issue a fine in the amount of $5,000 per tape,” a proposal that — if acted on by the Attorney General — would translate into substantial civil exposure for missing or unsigned tapes [2]. The board also voted to send aspects of the Fulton case to the Attorney General’s Office for possible action, demonstrating that the SEB often relies on prosecutorial or civil enforcement arms of state government to carry out sanctions it cannot itself impose [3].
3. Investigations, evidence-gathering and administrative rulemaking as preventive measures
Beyond immediate sanctions, the SEB’s historical toolbox includes investigations, expanded record requests and rulemaking intended to tighten procedures — for example, the Secretary of State’s office investigated unsigned tapes and “substantiated” violations of record‑keeping processes in Fulton County, and the SEB has been actively considering rule changes (such as defining when hand‑marked ballots are required and reconciliation/recorded count rules) aimed at preventing similar lapses [4] [5] [6]. Those measures are designed to create clearer duties and enforcement paths going forward [6].
4. Legal and practical limits: decertification is not a remedy the SEB can unilaterally apply
Courts and practitioners have repeatedly underscored limits on retroactive remedies: a judge in an earlier proceeding observed there is no mechanism to order the Secretary of State to decertify statewide results, and appellate rulings have emphasized the mandatory statutory duty to certify county results rather than granting an administrative rewind of certified totals [3]. SEB members have therefore pursued remedies they can effectuate — reprimands, monitors, referrals, fines via AG — rather than attempting to decertify county or statewide results, a step that court rulings and statutory structure have called into question [3].
5. How the Fulton tapes episode illustrates the pattern — and the political overlay
The Fulton County disclosures — that tens of millions of lines of reporting describe roughly 134 unsigned tabulator tapes affecting about 315,000 early ballots and that county counsel acknowledged the tapes were unsigned — triggered the SEB’s familiar mix of remedial responses: substantiation by the Secretary of State’s office, SEB discussion of fines and a vote to involve the Attorney General, and consideration of monitoring and improved procedures [7] [4] [2]. Reporting shows this plays out amid intense political pressure and competing narratives: some actors call for decertification and heavy sanctions, while the SEB’s historical practice and legal constraints point toward monitoring, reprimand and referral rather than retroactive nullification [2] [3].
6. Remaining gaps and unresolved questions in the historical record
Public accounts document reprimands, monitors, referrals to the Attorney General and proposed per‑tape fines, but do not show the SEB exercising an authority to decertify certified vote totals or to impose criminal penalties directly — those steps remain in the hands of courts or the Attorney General, and the record in these sources does not establish whether AG civil fines have actually been levied in prior tabulator tape cases [1] [2] [3]. The sources also reflect ongoing rulemaking and litigation over the board’s reach, leaving open how frequently the AG or courts will convert SEB referrals into concrete sanctions [6] [3].