How have Georgia courts ruled in past election challenges involving chain‑of‑custody or unsigned tabulation documents?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Georgia courts have generally resisted post‑hoc attempts to unsettle certified results based solely on procedural chain‑of‑custody defects, blocking new rules that would change certification and hand‑count procedures while holding county officials to statutory certification duties; at the same time, judges have required that challenges to novel election‑board rules be resolved in court rather than by unilateral county action [1] [2] [3]. Where administrative investigators or activists have pointed to unsigned tabulation tapes, that factual dispute has produced administrative findings and media claims but not a court decision overturning certified results in Georgia in the reporting provided [4] [5].
1. Courts enforce statutory certification timelines and bar local officials from refusing to certify
Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney ruled that county election officials must certify results by the deadline set in law and may not refuse or abstain from certifying even if they suspect errors or fraud, emphasizing that inspection of documents cannot be a lawful excuse to withhold certification [1]. Multiple reports echo that decision’s practical effect: courts have placed the duty to certify within statutory deadlines above discretionary investigatory pauses by local boards [6] [1].
2. Judges struck down State Election Board rules that would have rewritten chain‑of‑custody practices
Judges have invalidated a bundle of new rules adopted by Georgia’s State Election Board — including one requiring post‑closing hand counts and others expanding certification authority or documentary access — finding the board exceeded its authority and that some rules were “illegal, unconstitutional and void,” and the Georgia Supreme Court declined to reinstate them while appeals proceed [7] [3] [8]. Courts framed those rulings as preserving the balance between rulemaking and statutory law, effectively rejecting ad hoc procedural changes that could alter how ballots, tapes or memory cards are handled without legislative backing [9] [10].
3. Courts favor established statutory and administrative channels over election‑denial litigation
When conservative and Democratic actors alike sought to use new rules to delay certification or to compel different evidentiary handling, judges pushed those fights into ordinary litigation and enforcement channels rather than allowing counties to unilaterally discard ballots or decline certification; a judge temporarily blocked the hand‑count rule ahead of an election and required resolution by the courts [2] [6]. That posture reflects courts’ reticence to let administrative or political changes substitute for the statutory framework that governs chain‑of‑custody and certification [1].
4. Unsigned tabulation tapes: administrative acknowledgments, activist claims, but no court‑ordered decertification in reporting
Activists and some local board members flagged a large number of unsigned tabulator tapes in Fulton County and have called those gaps “catastrophic” chain‑of‑custody failures; the activist narrative cites 134 unsigned tapes representing roughly 315,000 votes and notes administrative confirmation that dozens of advanced voting precincts lacked required signatures [4] [5]. Reporting shows the Secretary of State’s office and local boards investigated and produced findings, and the Department of Justice sought access to records for further review — but the sources do not document a Georgia court that has invalidated certified results based solely on unsigned tapes [11] [12] [13].
5. Federal interest, ongoing investigations, and limits of current public record
The Justice Department has sued to obtain 2020 voting materials from Fulton County, signaling federal interest in records tied to tabulation and envelopes, and has framed that request as part of an election‑integrity probe [12] [13]. At the same time, media reporting and administrative rulings have focused on rule validity and procedure rather than judicially overturning outcomes for chain‑of‑custody lapses; available sources do not show a Georgia court decision invalidating certified election results on the basis of unsigned tabulation documents alone [12] [3] [5]. That gap means current reporting documents administrative findings, rule‑challenge rulings, and federal records requests, but not a precedent of courts decertifying elections for unsigned tapes.
Conclusion: Georgia courts to date have prioritized statutory certification duties and have struck down or paused administrative rules that would materially change chain‑of‑custody or counting procedures, while inquiries and administrative findings about unsigned tapes have prompted investigations and litigation but not, in the sources provided, judicial decertification of election results based solely on those signature gaps [1] [7] [5].