§ § 21-2-483Counting of ballots; public accessibility to tabulating center and precincts; execution of ballot recap forms; procedure for torn, bent, or otherwise defective ballots; preparation of duplicate ballot

In primaries and elections in which optical scanners are used, the ballots shall be counted at the precinct or tabulating center under the direction of the superintendent. All persons who perform any duties at the tabulating center shall be deputized by the superintendent, and only persons so deputized shall touch any ballot, container, paper, or machine utilized in the conduct of the count or be permitted to be inside the area designated for officers deputized to conduct the count.

All proceedings at the tabulating center and precincts shall be open to the view of the public, but no person except one employed and designated for the purpose by the superintendent or the superintendent’s authorized deputy shall touch any ballot or ballot container.

At the tabulating center, the seal on each container of ballots shall be inspected, and it shall be certified that the seal has not been broken before the container is opened. The ballots and other contents of the container shall then be removed, and the ballots shall be prepared for processing by the tabulating machines. The ballots of each polling place shall be plainly identified and cannot be commingled with the ballots of other polling places.

Upon completion of tabulation of the votes, the superintendent shall cause to be completed and signed a ballot recap form, in sufficient counterparts, showing:

The number of valid ballots, including any that are damaged;

The number of spoiled and invalid ballots; and

The number of unused ballots.

The superintendent shall cause to be placed one copy of the recap form and the defective, spoiled, and invalid ballots, each enclosed in an envelope, in the ballot supply container.

For any election for which there is a qualified write-in candidate, the feature on precinct count and central count tabulators allowing separation of write-in votes shall be utilized. If any vote cast on the write-in ballot in combination with the vote cast for the same office on the ballot exceeds the allowed number for the office, the vote cast for that office only shall not be counted. In the discretion of the superintendent, either a duplicate ballot shall be made on which any invalid vote shall be omitted or the write-in ballot and the ballot shall be counted in such manner as may be prescribed by State Election Board rules, omitting the invalid vote.

If it appears that a ballot is so torn, bent, or otherwise defective that it cannot be processed by the tabulating machine, the superintendent, in his or her discretion, may order a duplication panel to prepare a true duplicate copy for processing. In a partisan election, the duplication panel shall be composed of the election superintendent or a designee thereof and one person appointed by the county executive committee of each political party having candidates whose names appear on the ballot for such election, provided that, if there is no organized county executive committee for a political party, the person shall be appointed by the state executive committee of the political party. In a nonpartisan election or an election involving only the presentation of a question to the electors, the duplication panel shall be composed of the election superintendent or a designee thereof and two electors of the county or municipality. In the case of a nonpartisan county or municipal election or an election involving only the presentation of a question to the electors, the two elector members of the panel shall be appointed by the chief judge of the superior court of the county or municipality in which the election is held. In the case of a municipality which is located in more than one county, the two elector members of the panel shall be appointed by the chief judge of the superior court of the county in which the city hall of the municipality is located. The election superintendent may create multiple duplication panels to handle the processing of such ballots more efficiently. All duplicate ballots shall be clearly labeled by the word “duplicate,” shall bear the designation of the polling place, and shall contain a unique number that will allow such duplicate ballot to be linked back to the original ballot. The defective ballot shall be retained.

The central tabulator shall be programmed to reject any ballot, including absentee ballots, on which an overvote is detected and any ballot so rejected shall be manually reviewed by the vote review panel described in this Code section to determine the voter’s intent as described in subsection (c) of Code Section 21-2-438.

In a partisan election, the vote review panel shall be composed of the election superintendent or designee thereof and one person appointed by the county executive committee of each political party and body having candidates whose names appear on the ballot for such election, provided that, if there is no organized county executive committee for a political party or body, the person shall be appointed by the state executive committee of the political party or body. In a nonpartisan election, the panel shall be composed of the election superintendent or designee thereof and two electors of the county, in the case of a county election, or the municipality, in the case of a municipal election, appointed by the chief judge of the superior court of the county in which the election is held or, in the case of a municipality which is located in more than one county, of the county in which the city hall of the municipality is located. The panel shall manually review all ballots rejected by the tabulator under paragraph (1) of this subsection and shall determine by majority vote whether the elector’s intent can be determined as described in subsection (c) of Code Section 21-2-438 and, if so, said vote shall be counted as the elector intended. In the event of a tie vote by the vote review panel, the vote of the election superintendent or designee thereof shall control.

The election superintendent may create multiple vote review panels in accordance with subparagraph (A) of this paragraph to handle the processing of such ballots more efficiently. Upon the creation of such panels, the election superintendent shall designate one of the panels as the chief vote review panel. In the event of a disagreement on such additional panels, the ballots in question shall be reviewed by the chief vote review panel and decided in accordance with the procedures contained in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph.

The official returns of the votes cast on ballots at each polling place shall be printed by the tabulating machine. The returns thus prepared shall be certified and promptly posted. The ballots, spoiled, defective, and invalid ballots, and returns shall be filed and retained as provided by law.

History.

Code 1981, §

21-2-483

, enacted by Ga. L. 1998, p. 1231, § 41; Ga. L. 2003, p. 517, § 54; Ga. L. 2011, p. 683, § 17/SB 82; Ga. L. 2021, p. 14, § 39/SB 202.

The 2021 amendment,

effective March 25, 2021, rewrote subsection (f), which read: “If it appears that a ballot is so torn, bent, or otherwise defective that it cannot be processed by the tabulating machine, the superintendent, in his or her discretion, may order the proper election official at the tabulating center or precinct to prepare a true duplicate copy for processing with the ballots of the same polling place, which shall be verified in the presence of a witness. All duplicate ballots shall be clearly labeled by the word ‘duplicate,’ shall bear the designation of the polling place, and shall be given the same serial number as the defective ballot. The defective ballot shall be retained.”

Editor’s notes.

Ga. L. 2021, p. 14, § 1/SB 202, not codified by the General Assembly, provides: “This Act shall be known and may be cited as the ‘Election Integrity Act of 2021.”’

Ga. L. 2021, p. 14, § 2/SB 202, not codified by the General Assembly, provides: “The General Assembly finds and declares that:

“(1) Following the 2018 and 2020 elections, there was a significant lack of confidence in Georgia election systems, with many electors concerned about allegations of rampant voter suppression and many electors concerned about allegations of rampant voter fraud;

“(2) Many Georgia election processes were challenged in court, including the subjective signature-matching requirements, by Georgians on all sides of the political spectrum before and after the 2020 general election;

“(3) The stress of the 2020 elections, with a dramatic increase in absentee-by-mail ballots and pandemic restrictions, demonstrated where there were opportunities to update existing processes to reduce the burden on election officials and boost voter confidence;

“(4) The changes made in this legislation in 2021 are designed to address the lack of elector confidence in the election system on all sides of the political spectrum, to reduce the burden on election officials, and to streamline the process of conducting elections in Georgia by promoting uniformity in voting. Several examples will help explain how these goals are achieved;

“(5) The broad discretion allowed to local officials for advance voting dates and hours led to significant variations across the state in total number of hours of advance voting, depending on the county. More than 100 counties have never offered voting on Sunday and many counties offered only a single day of weekend voting. Requiring two Saturday voting days and two optional Sunday voting days will dramatically increase the total voting hours for voters across the State of Georgia, and all electors in Georgia will have access to multiple opportunities to vote in person on the weekend for the first time;

“(6) Some counties in 2020 received significant infusions of grant funding for election operations, while other counties received no such funds. Promoting uniformity in the distribution of funds to election operations will boost voter confidence and ensure that there is no political advantage conferred by preferring certain counties over others in the distribution of funds;

“(7) Elections in Georgia are administered by counties, but that can lead to problems for voters in counties with dysfunctional election systems. Counties with long-term problems of lines, problems with processing of absentee ballots, and other challenges in administration need accountability, but state officials are limited in what they are able to do to address those problems. Ensuring there is a mechanism to address local election problems will promote voter confidence and meet the goal of uniformity;

“(8) Elections are a public process and public participation is encouraged by all involved, but the enthusiasm of some outside groups in sending multiple absentee ballot applications in 2020, often with incorrectly filled-in voter information, led to significant confusion by electors. Clarifying the rules regarding absentee ballot applications will build elector confidence while not sacrificing the opportunities for electors to participate in the process;

“(9) The lengthy absentee ballot process also led to elector confusion, including electors who were told they had already voted when they arrived to vote in person. Creating a definite period of absentee voting will assist electors in understanding the election process while also ensuring that opportunities to vote are not diminished, especially when many absentee ballots issued in the last few days before the election were not successfully voted or were returned late;

“(10) Opportunities for delivering absentee ballots to a drop box were first created by the State Election Board as a pandemic response. The drop boxes created by rule no longer existed in Georgia law when the emergency rules that created them expired. The General Assembly considered a variety of options and constructed a system that allows the use of drop boxes, while also ensuring the security of the system and providing options in emergency situations;

“(11) The length