How did the State Election Board determine the double-counted ballots would not change the 2020 election outcome?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The State Elections Board concluded that the duplicate ballot images found in Fulton County’s 2020 machine recount did not change the presidential outcome by relying on the scale of the duplicates relative to Biden’s margin, the fact that ballot images themselves are not votes, and cross-checks from multiple counts and audits that produced consistent totals [1] [2]. Investigators reported 3,075 duplicate ballot images but said they could not determine whether those duplicates were actually tabulated in the recount; nonetheless, statewide hand audits and multiple tallies provided the board confidence the small anomalies would not flip the 11,779-vote margin in Georgia [3] [2].
1. How many “double-counted” items were identified and what they actually were
State investigators reported finding 3,075 duplicate ballot images in the set of electronic images generated during Fulton County’s machine recount of the 2020 presidential contest, but those are digital pictures used to review ambiguous marks rather than the paper ballots counted for votes; in other words, the finding was about duplicate images, not a confirmed double tabulation of paper ballots [1] [2]. The board emphasized that ballot images assist workers when a scanner flags a mark, and images themselves do not constitute the official vote count — the paper ballot is the legal record [2] [4].
2. Why the board said the anomalies could not change the statewide result
Officials pointed to the magnitude of the statewide margin — Joe Biden’s 11,779-vote lead in Georgia — and the fact that three independent tallies (initial machine tabulation, a hand risk-limiting audit, and a machine recount) produced similar totals; those multiple concordant counts made it extremely unlikely that a few thousand duplicate images, even if some corresponded to tabulated votes, could reverse the statewide outcome [2] [5]. Investigators also noted they could not prove duplicates were included in tabulated totals, undercutting any chain of reasoning that the duplicate images equated to net additional votes large enough to overcome the margin [3] [2].
3. The limits of the investigation and why uncertainty remains
The state acknowledged limits: while the image duplicates were counted, investigators said they were “unable to determine how many of the invalid ballots were included in the results used to certify the 2020 election,” and in some cases ballot images or files were missing from county-provided records, leaving gaps that mean absolute proof either way was not always possible [3]. The secretary of state’s office pointed out that the original paper ballots remain sealed and could be rescanned in litigation, but at the time of the board’s determination the available evidence did not show a change to the certified outcome [3].
4. How canvass, audits and certification factor into the board’s confidence
Georgia’s statewide processes included hand-count audits and a formal canvass that aggregates and confirms every valid ballot type; national guidance also emphasizes canvass and post-election audits as ways to confirm tabulation accuracy, and analysts have found audited error rates in presidential contests to be on the order of thousandths of a percent, reinforcing the board’s reliance on robust post-election checks [4] [6]. North Carolina’s and other states’ post-election hand-to-eye audits are cited as examples of routine corroboration that machines and human counts align closely, which is the broader procedural logic used to assess whether anomalies are consequential [7] [4].
5. Sanctions, remedial steps and competing narratives
Although the board concluded the anomalies didn’t change the outcome, it reprimanded Fulton County for procedural failures and ordered an outside monitor for future elections — actions that acknowledge error without equating those errors to fraud or a stolen result [1]. Critics and some local advocates argue that missing images and the inability to definitively prove the duplicates weren’t tabulated leave open reasonable doubts and call for rescans or further court-ordered reviews; the state counters that available evidence and multiple concordant counts uphold the certified result [3] [2].
6. What this determination does — and does not — settle
The board’s finding settles the official question of whether the certified 2020 statewide result must be overturned: investigators concluded the documented anomalies, as understood from available records, would not change who won Georgia’s electoral votes [2]. It does not eliminate all avenues for further forensic examination — sealed paper ballots and missing image files mean litigation or new scans could produce additional detail — but the combination of margin size, multiple matching tallies, and the nature of the duplicated items informed the board’s determination [3] [5].