What prosecutions resulted from the State Election Board referrals tied to Georgia's 2020 election?

1. What the State Election Board actually sent to prosecutors

At the board meeting that produced the referrals, officials presented summaries of 35 cases spanning multiple election cycles and described specific categories of alleged violations: four incidents of felons voting or registering, four cases of noncitizens voting or registering, one instance of misplaced ballots in the 2020 general election, and alleged misconduct by canvassers submitting false registration applications—one involving a canvasser tied to groups associated with then-Sen. Raphael Warnock’s prior board role—among other matters ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

2. Administrative outcomes versus criminal outcomes

The State Election Board’s investigatory role is administrative: it can levy fines, issue letters of instruction, dismiss matters, or refer cases to prosecutors for criminal consideration, but it does not itself bring criminal charges ^{[1] [6]}. The Georgia attorney general later clarified that his office cannot be compelled by the board to investigate and that authority to investigate potential election-law violations rests with the board, not with the AG acting as an investigator on the board’s direction ^[5].

3. What the reporting shows about prosecutions from those referrals

The reporting supplied documents the act of referral and provides case summaries and administrative dispositions—such as the dismissal of long-running SEB2020-059, the “ballot suitcase” matter—but does not contain verified reports that prosecutors brought criminal charges, obtained indictments, or secured convictions directly traceable to the 35 referrals mentioned ^{[4] [1]}. Where the board referred cases to the attorney general or local district attorneys, the public record in these sources stops at referral or administrative action rather than showing prosecutorial outcomes ^{[2] [3]}.

4. Federal activity and later inquiries are related but distinct

Subsequent federal activity—FBI searches of Fulton County election offices and Department of Justice subpoenas seeking 2020 election records—are reported in later coverage and court filings but are separate federal inquiries and, in the supplied accounts, are not presented as prosecutions flowing from the State Election Board’s specific 35 referrals ^{[7] [8] [9]}. Reporting also documents procedural confusion and legal friction around records requests and subpoenas, underscoring that federal actions and state referrals followed different tracks and legal thresholds ^{[10] [8]}.

5. Political context, competing narratives and institutional limits

The referrals occurred amid intense political pressure to relitigate the 2020 results in Georgia; board members and outside actors framed referrals as accountability while critics described some efforts as part of a broader campaign to find wrongdoing where prior audits and reviews had not established widespread fraud ^{[2] [11] [12]}. The attorney general’s opinion that the board cannot force his office to investigate highlights institutional limits on converting administrative referrals into prosecutions without prosecutorial approval or new evidence warranting criminal charging ^[5].

6. Bottom line

From the material provided, the State Election Board did refer 35 matters—including several tied to the 2020 election—to prosecutors and dismissed at least some high-profile administrative inquiries, but the sources do not document prosecutions (charges, indictments, trials or convictions) that resulted directly from those specific referrals; the record ends at referral, dismissal, administrative reprimand or separate federal records-seeking activity in the supplied reporting ^{[1] [4] [7] [5]}.