Georgia Supreme Court overturns some election rules, curbing State Election Board's power
ATLANTA (AP) — Georgia's highest court on Tuesday overturned four rules passed by the State Election Board just before last year's general election, ruling the board overstepped its authority and intruded on lawmaking power reserved for legislators under the state constitution.
The state Supreme Court's unanimous decision limits the future rulemaking ability of the State Election Board and other executive branch agencies of Georgia's government.
The board passed a slate of new rules in August and September that mostly had to do with processes after ballots are cast, spawning a flurry of lawsuits.
President Donald Trump narrowly lost the state in 2020 and alleged without evidence that election fraud had cost him victory. Three Trump-endorsed Republicans hold the majority on the five-person State Election Board.
The new rules brought an outcry that the board's majority was trying to improperly use its power to help Trump. The board members claimed the changes were needed to improve the accuracy of results.
Fulton County Superior Court Judge Thomas Cox ruled in October that seven of the rules were 'illegal, unconstitutional and void,' but the board appealed.
Trump beat Democratic former Vice President Kamala Harris in November to win Georgia.
In its decision, the state Supreme Court invalidated the requirements that ballots be hand-counted after the close of polls, that someone delivering an absentee ballot in person provide a signature and photo ID, that county election board members be allowed to conduct a 'reasonable inquiry' before certifying results and that county election board members be granted broad access to election-related documents.
The court let stand a rule requiring video surveillance and recording of ballot drop boxes after polls close during early voting. It told a lower court to decide whether Chatham County Board of Elections member James Hall has the right to challenge two other rules, which expand designated areas where partisan poll watchers can stand at tabulation centers and require daily public updates of the number of votes cast during early voting.
As part of its decision, the court overturned a 1990 decision that widened the rulemaking power of state agencies. Chief Justice Nels Peterson wrote that the decision was a mistake because it doesn't 'provide clear, objective guidelines that cabin an executive branch agency's exercise of discretion.'
The reversal parallels the U.S. Supreme Court's overturning last year of a doctrine that said courts had to defer to how administrative agencies interpreted laws in writing rules.
What was called the Chevron doctrine gave federal agencies the authority to make rules for implementing laws passed by Congress that were unclear.
Scot Turner, a former state representative and one of the people who challenged the rules, said the court's decision will rein in 'unelected bureaucrats.'
'This ruling makes clear: the legislative power belongs to the General Assembly, not executive branch agencies operating without proper constraints,' Turner said in a statement.
The court ruled that the State Election Board had asserted 'the type of unfettered discretion that we have now reiterated is constitutionally intolerable.'
That analysis applied to the rule allowing county board members to conduct 'reasonable inquiry' into whether results are valid, which the court said could delay finalizing votes and contradicted state law that says counties 'shall' certify results. The court also ruled that election board members could only examine documents when there were discrepancies in the number of voters or ballots.
The court ruled that the rule requiring poll officials to hand-count the total number of ballots — not individual votes — contradicted state law. That's because it allowed the hand-count to take place after Election Day, while state law requires ballots to be tabulated 'as soon as' polls close.
A rule requiring people to provide a signature and photo ID when delivering an absentee ballot was invalid, the court ruled, because it 'invents new requirements' not found in law.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
12 minutes ago
- New York Post
The 21 cases left for the Supreme Court to decide, including transgender care
The Supreme Court is in the homestretch of a term that has lately been dominated by the Trump administration's emergency appeals of lower court orders seeking to slow President Donald Trump's efforts to remake the federal government. But the justices also have 21 cases to resolve that were argued between December and mid-May, including a push by Republican-led states to ban gender-affirming care for transgender minors. One of the argued cases was an emergency appeal, the administration's bid to be allowed to enforce Trump's executive order denying birthright citizenship to U.S.-born children of parents who are in the country illegally. The court typically aims to finish its work by the end of June. 7 The Supreme Court has 21 cases to resolve that were argued between December and mid-May. REUTERS Here are some of the biggest remaining cases: Tennessee and 26 other states have enacted bans on certain treatment for transgender youth The oldest unresolved case, and arguably the term's biggest, stems from a challenge to Tennessee's law from transgender minors and their parents who argue that it is unconstitutional sex discrimination aimed at a vulnerable population. At arguments in December, the court's conservative majority seemed inclined to uphold the law, voicing skepticism of claims that it violates the 14th amendment's equal protection clause. The post-Civil War provision requires the government to treat similarly situated people the same. 7 The oldest unresolved case stems from a challenge to Tennessee's law on transgender youth AP 7 The court is weighing the case amid other federal and state efforts to regulate the lives of transgender people, such as which bathrooms they can use, and pushes to keep transgender athletes from playing in girls' sports. The court is weighing the case amid a range of other federal and state efforts to regulate the lives of transgender people, including which sports competitions they can join and which bathrooms they can use. In April, Trump's administration sued Maine for not complying with the government's push to ban transgender athletes in girls sports. Trump also has sought to block federal spending on gender-affirming care for those under 19 and a conservative majority of justices allowed him to move forward with plans to oust transgender people from the U.S. military. Trump's birthright citizenship order has been blocked by lower courts The court rarely hears arguments over emergency appeals, but it took up the administration's plea to narrow orders that have prevented the citizenship changes from taking effect anywhere in the U.S. The issue before the justices is whether to limit the authority of judges to issue nationwide injunctions, which have plagued both Republican and Democratic administrations in the past 10 years. 7 Protesters confront law enforcement outside of a federal building and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention center in Los Angeles. Getty Images These nationwide court orders have emerged as an important check on Trump's efforts and a source of mounting frustration to the Republican president and his allies. At arguments last month, the court seemed intent on keeping a block on the citizenship restrictions while still looking for a way to scale back nationwide court orders. It was not clear what such a decision might look like, but a majority of the court expressed concerns about what would happen if the administration were allowed, even temporarily, to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally. Democratic-led states, immigrants and rights groups who sued over Trump's executive order argued that it would upset the settled understanding of birthright citizenship that has existed for more than 125 years. 7 A majority of the court last month expressed concerns about what would happen if the administration were allowed to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally. REUTERS The court seems likely to side with Maryland parents in a religious rights case over LGBTQ storybooks in public schools Parents in the Montgomery County school system, in suburban Washington, want to be able to pull their children out of lessons that use the storybooks, which the county added to the curriculum to better reflect the district's diversity. The school system at one point allowed parents to remove their children from those lessons, but then reversed course because it found the opt-out policy to be disruptive. Sex education is the only area of instruction with an opt-out provision in the county's schools. 7 LGBTQ+ veterans hold signs protesting the ban on transgender military members as they march in the World Pride parade in Washington, DC on June 7. Nathan Posner/Shutterstock The school district introduced the storybooks in 2022, with such titles as 'Prince and Knight' and 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding.' The case is one of several religious rights cases at the court this term. The justices have repeatedly endorsed claims of religious discrimination in recent years. The decision also comes amid increases in recent years in books being banned from public school and public libraries. A three-year battle over congressional districts in Louisiana is making its second trip to the Supreme Court Lower courts have struck down two Louisiana congressional maps since 2022 and the justices are weighing whether to send state lawmakers back to the map-drawing board for a third time. The case involves the interplay between race and politics in drawing political boundaries in front of a conservative-led court that has been skeptical of considerations of race in public life. At arguments in March, several of the court's conservative justices suggested they could vote to throw out the map and make it harder, if not impossible, to bring redistricting lawsuits under the Voting Rights Act. 7 The case about Louisiana congressional maps involves the interplay between race and politics in drawing political boundaries in front of a conservative-led court. AP Before the court now is a map that created a second Black majority congressional district among Louisiana's six seats in the House of Representatives. The district elected a Black Democrat in 2024. A three-judge court found that the state relied too heavily on race in drawing the district, rejecting Louisiana's arguments that politics predominated, specifically the preservation of the seats of influential members of Congress, including Speaker Mike Johnson. The Supreme Court ordered the challenged map to be used last year while the case went on. Lawmakers only drew that map after civil rights advocates won a court ruling that a map with one Black majority district likely violated the landmark voting rights law. The justices are weighing a Texas law aimed at blocking kids from seeing online pornography Texas is among more than a dozen states with age verification laws. The states argue the laws are necessary as smartphones have made access to online porn, including hardcore obscene material, almost instantaneous. The question for the court is whether the measure infringes on the constitutional rights of adults as well. The Free Speech Coalition, an adult-entertainment industry trade group, agrees that children shouldn't be seeing pornography. But it says the Texas law is written too broadly and wrongly affects adults by requiring them to submit personal identifying information online that is vulnerable to hacking or tracking. The justices appeared open to upholding the law, though they also could return it to a lower court for additional work. Some justices worried the lower court hadn't applied a strict enough legal standard in determining whether the Texas law and others like that could run afoul of the First Amendment.
CNN
15 minutes ago
- CNN
In pictures: The nationwide ‘No Kings' protests
More than 2,000 protests are scheduled across all 50 states Saturday through the No Kings movement, which organizers say seeks to reject 'authoritarianism, billionaire-first politics, and the militarization of our democracy.' The mobilization is a direct response to a military parade rolling through Washington, DC, on Saturday that celebrates the 250th anniversary of the US Army. It also coincides with President Donald Trump's 79th birthday. Saturday's rallies have been amplified by a week of protests against ICE raids in Los Angeles and other major cities. Following the Hands Off! and 50501 protests this spring, Saturday's demonstrations aren't the first nationwide rejection of Trump's policies. But organizers expect them to be the largest. Millions of Americans are expected to take part.
Politico
15 minutes ago
- Politico
The Resistance 2.0 arrives with nationwide ‘No Kings' protests
As President Donald Trump's military parade rolls through the nation's capital on Saturday, millions of Americans across the country are taking part in the largest coordinated protests against the president since the start of his second administration. But while Trump's parade aims to show America's military prowess in its new era — remade under the administration's anti-diversity, equity and inclusion policies — over 2,000 protests planned for major cities and small towns across the country are expected to outdo the president's parade in scale. The demonstrations, organized by an extensive list of progressive organizations including the ACLU, Indivisible and the Service Employees International Union, are dubbed 'No Kings' protests, aiming to highlight Americans' resistance to the Trump administration. 'No Kings is really about standing up for democracy, standing up for people's rights and liberties in this country and against the gross abuse of power that we've seen consistently from the Trump administration,' ACLU's chief political and advocacy officer Deirdre Schifeling said in an interview earlier this military parade and the nationwide counterprotest come at a time of heightened political tensions across the country. In the last week alone, Trump deployed the National Guard and Marines to Los Angeles over the objection of state and local officials amid protests — and some unrest — over the president's extensive deportation agenda; Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) was manhandled and briefly handcuffed at a press conference for Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem; and two Minnesota state lawmakers were shot, and one killed, early Saturday in what Minnesota Gov. Tim Waltz described it as a politically motivated assination. Over 100 of the protests were planned by volunteers in the past week alone, organizers said, popping up in response to the Trump administration's crackdown on anti-immigration detention protesters in California. 'The Trump administration's goal was to scare people, to make them afraid to stand up for their rights and afraid to protest and stand up for their immigrant neighbors. And it's backfired spectacularly,' Schifeling said. But Saturday's early morning shooting in Minnesota is already weighing on the events. A spokesperson to one prominent battleground Democratic Senate candidate with plans to participate in the demonstrations, granted anonymity to discuss security procedures, said that they are taking extra precautions after the attack in Minnesota. Walz recommended that people not attend events in the state in the aftermath of the killings. 'Out of an abundance of caution my Department of Public Safety is recommending that people do not attend any political rallies today in Minnesota until the suspect is apprehended,' he wrote on social media. But organizers elsewhere said the events will go on. Diane Morgan, a Cleveland-based mobilization coordinator with Our Revolution, said that in the wake of the shooting she's hearing from people on the ground who are saying that 'more than anything else, it makes people more determined, much like what happened with L.A.,' to attend a protest Saturday. Democratic governors in several states — including North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein, Maryland Gov. Wes Moore and Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs — released statements on the eve of the planned demonstrations, emphasizing the right to peacefully protest but urging Americans taking to the streets to remain peaceful. 'The right to peacefully protest is sacred and enshrined in our First Amendment, and I will always work to protect that right,' Stein said. 'I urge everyone who wishes to be heard to do so peacefully and lawfully.' While No Kings demonstrations are planned across the nation in what organizers expect to be 'the largest single day of protest in recent American history,' no protests are slated to take place in Washington itself. 'Rather than give him the excuse to crack down on peaceful counterprotests in downtown D.C., or give him the narrative device to claim that we're protesting the military, we said, okay, you can have downtown D.C.,' Ezra Levin, the co-founder and co-executive director of Indivisible, said. 'Instead, we should organize it everywhere else.' The military parade — which is set to mark the army's 250th anniversary, but also happens to fall on Trump's 79th birthday — will include over 6,000 marching soldiers, battle tanks and other military vehicles, as well as military aircraft accompanying the procession overhead. Army estimates place the cost of the festivities somewhere between $25 and $45 million, an expense that 60 percent of Americans say is not a good use of funds. But Saturday's festivities may yet face obstacles, with thunderstorms predicted to hit the city in the evening. But Trump is unfazed. 'OUR GREAT MILITARY PARADE IS ON, RAIN OR SHINE. REMEMBER, A RAINY DAY PARADE BRINGS GOOD LUCK. I'LL SEE YOU ALL IN D.C.,' the president wrote in a post on Truth Social Saturday morning. Trump has maintained, in the face of the No Kings protests, that he does not view himself as a monarch. 'No, no. We're not a king,' Trump said at the White House on Thursday. 'We're not a king at all, thank you very much.' Schifeling said she finds Trump's objections 'laughable.' 'This is a person who violates the law at every turn, and is doing everything in his power to intimidate and crush — using the vast power of the presidency and also power that he doesn't even have — to crush anybody that he perceives as disagreeing with him or as his enemies. Those are the actions of a king,' she said. Adam Wren contributed to this report.
