What are the legal and administrative remedies available to the State Election Board when a county violates election procedures in Georgia?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The Georgia State Election Board (SEB) can investigate county election administration, adopt and enforce rules, hold proceedings on petitions and waivers, and refer suspected statutory violations to prosecutors — but it lacks authority to order new elections or unilaterally change certified results, and its rulemaking is constrained by state law and the courts [1] [2] [3]. Recent litigation and judicial rulings have curtailed aspects of the Board’s reach, underscoring that most potent remedies against county misconduct flow through investigations and onward referrals to the Attorney General or local district attorneys and, if necessary, court action [1] [3] [4].
1. Investigative power: the Board can investigate and compel review
Statute explicitly authorizes the SEB to investigate administration of election laws and alleged frauds or irregularities and to authorize the Secretary of State to carry out those investigations, allowing the Board to probe county procedure violations and gather records and testimony [1] [2]. The SEB’s published “How To Request Investigation” explains that investigations are confidential until the board takes action and that the Board will provide a copy of the request to those accused, which structures a formal investigatory pathway short of criminal prosecution [2].
2. Rulemaking and administrative oversight — scope and limits
The SEB may promulgate rules to implement the Election Code and set uniform standards for voting systems and procedures, giving it administrative tools to define how counties should operate in many areas [1] [5]. That power is real but not plenary: Georgia courts have repeatedly struck down SEB rules that go beyond or contradict statutory law, most notably invalidating rules that would have made certification discretionary or imposed hand-counting requirements and other contested procedures [3] [6] [7]. The Georgia Supreme Court has emphasized the Board “can pass rules to implement and enforce the Election Code, but it cannot go beyond, change, or contradict” existing statutes [7].
3. Proceedings, petitions, and administrative remedies against counties
The SEB maintains formal proceedings and processes for petitions and waivers — for example, county petitions about pre-certification meeting requirements and waiver requests for specific rules appear on the Board’s proceedings docket — which gives counties and complainants an administrative forum to adjudicate disputes over procedure [8]. The Board also hears complaints about violations and can initiate investigations when county boards dismiss voter challenges or otherwise appear to violate statutes, as observed in public comments from groups monitoring the Board’s actions [9] [8].
4. Referrals, prosecutions, and limits on direct enforcement
If investigations uncover statutory violations, the SEB’s statutory duty is to report those violations to the Attorney General or the appropriate district attorney, who have the authority to pursue criminal or civil enforcement; the Board itself does not conduct criminal prosecutions [1] [2]. The SEB explicitly cannot order a new election or change an election result; those remedies would require judicial intervention or other statutory mechanisms outside the Board’s unilateral power [2].
5. Judicial checks, litigation, and collateral remedies
When the SEB exceeds statutory authority or violates procedural requirements, courts can enjoin its rules and nullify actions, as happened when lower courts and the Georgia Supreme Court struck down multiple SEB rules and remanded standing questions back to trial courts [3] [6] [4]. Conversely, outside parties can sue the Board for violations of open meetings laws or other obligations — American Oversight filed litigation seeking injunctive relief and civil penalties against SEB members for alleged Open Meetings Act breaches, demonstrating that litigation can be a check on both county and Board conduct [10].
6. Practical constraints: politics, timing, and confidence in remedies
The SEB’s practical effectiveness depends on staffing, timing, and political context: investigations are confidential and subject to resource limits, petitions and waivers can delay or alter procedures only within statutory bounds, and courts ultimately decide whether contested rules or Board actions stand — a dynamic visible in the post-2024 litigation over controversial rules and in public debate about the Board’s composition and motives [2] [11] [7]. When counties violate procedures, the SEB’s fastest administrative tools are investigation, proceedings, and rule interpretation, while definitive remedies most often require prosecutorial action or court orders that respect the limits courts have placed on the Board’s authority [1] [3] [2].