What did the Georgia State Election Board’s 2024 investigation specifically document about Fulton County’s audit procedures and errors?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The Georgia State Election Board’s 2024 review concluded Fulton County’s 2020 presidential recount used improper procedures — chiefly duplicative ballot images and batch tally errors — but found the problems were operational mistakes, not proven fraud, and were insufficient to change the election outcome [1] [2] [3]. The board reprimanded the county, ordered an independent monitor for 2024, and highlighted managerial and process failures that the county has since been working to fix [1] [2].
1. What the investigation specifically documented: duplicated images and double-counted ballots
Investigators documented that some ballot images provided by Fulton County appeared duplicative, indicating certain ballots may have been scanned more than once during the 2020 recount; the state’s review cited an instance of about 3,075 votes that could have been double-counted during the machine recount process [1] [4]. Georgia officials described “duplicative ballot images” and “double-counting” as concrete errors discovered in the recount documentation, and the board’s public action made those duplications the chief procedural fault cited in the report [1] [2].
2. The investigators’ reading of cause: human and managerial error, not intentional misconduct
The report and independent reviewers emphasized that the batch tally inconsistencies and duplicate scans stemmed from human error, managerial oversight failures and disorganization in recount procedures rather than deliberate wrongdoing; the independent panel explicitly stated it found no proof of intentional misconduct by election workers [2] [3]. State reviewers pointed to weak chain-of-custody practices around audit materials and inconsistent handling of batch tallies as examples of systemic procedural lapses rather than criminal acts [2] [3].
3. Scope of missing or incomplete records and limits on the review
Investigators noted gaps in the available electronic images — in some cases the state could not verify that every ballot image still existed — and confirmed original paper ballots remained sealed in court custody because of pending litigation, which limited what reviewers could independently re-run or re-scan [2]. The board’s summary flagged specific tally-sheet inconsistencies (reported as dozens of discrepancies in batch tally sheets) but also acknowledged those errors were explainable as routine human mistakes in reconciling batch counts [3].
4. Impact on results and the board’s conclusion about the outcome
After examining the duplications and tally irregularities, the state’s review concluded the documented errors would not have changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential contest in Georgia; that determination was repeatedly highlighted when the board framed the double-counting as serious procedural failings but not outcome-altering fraud [2] [3]. Several outlets and the board noted that, while embarrassing and operationally consequential, the mistakes were not of a scale that would flip statewide results [3] [5].
5. Remedies imposed: reprimand, monitoring and follow-up, and the political context
As remedies the State Election Board issued a formal reprimand and ordered an independent monitor to oversee Fulton County’s conduct for the 2024 election cycle rather than pursuing fines or a state takeover; the panel framed the monitor as a precautionary fix while allowing the county to retain local control [1] [2]. The move occurred amid fraught political debate — critics argued the board’s own investigative posture was inconsistent, while defenders said monitoring and process fixes were the proportionate response to procedural failures [2] [5].
6. Contested and later claims: what this investigation did and did not establish
Subsequent, more partisan claims in 2025 alleging very large certification or signature failures (for example, assertions about 315,000 improperly certified early votes or unsigned tabulation tapes) are reported in other outlets but are not the central findings of the 2024 State Election Board review summarized here; the original SEB documentation focused on duplicative images, batch tally inconsistencies and managerial lapses rather than the sweeping statutory-certification claims now circulating in some sources [6] [7] [8]. The Department of Justice’s later actions seeking records underscore that additional legal and civil processes continued beyond the state review, and reporting indicates federal scrutiny examined anomalies while affirming many discrepancies were due to human error [9] [3].