Officials in Georgia have used questionable legal tactics to delay an inspection of ballots cast in the November 3rd election.
A judge earlier this month granted an election integrity group in Georgia, VoterGA, permission to scan nearly 150,000 absentee ballots cast in the November 3 election. The Fulton County Board of Elections (BRE) waited until two days before the scanning of those ballots to file a motion to dismiss the case.
The judge granted a stay in the case which prevented the ballot scan from taking place – for now. The next court date has been set to June 21.
On the books in Georgia until this year was a sovereign immunity law that prevented state government officers and bodies from being sued in their official capacity. Because of that law VoterGa sued members of the BRE individually when the suit was first filed in December.
However changes to Georgia’s sovereign immunity law were on the ballot last November in the form of a referendum. That referendum, which would allow for the naming of state officials in lawsuits and would take hold in January, passed in November.
As a result Judge Brian Amero added the Fulton County Board of Elections in a substitution in the suit. The BRE is now claiming that substitution did not qualify as they’re having been properly served with notice they were being sued as part of the case.
Garland Favorito, the head of VoterGA, while expressing concern about Amero’s actions believes the judge pushed for a motion to dismiss not because of the merits of the case but out of diligence.
“I was a little disturbed about that. It’s almost like he was asking for a motion to dismiss. The judge wants to be very careful that this is not overturned on any kind of appeal. So he wants to cover every single base,” he said in a conference call with supporters yesterday.
He also pointed out apparent holes in the legal arguments made by the BRE.
“We served the responsible parties, which were the five election board members. Ironically the Election Board is now saying that they never were served when in fact, yes, as a whole you weren’t but all five were served,” he said.
“The problem that the County has is if they had an issue with service, why did they appear in court? There’s many legal cases that say that if you appeared in court then this issue of service is moot. So I think our argument would be is if you thought you should have been served but weren’t why did the Board of Elections show up to begin with?”
“You should have raised this issue in January. Not now.”
Despite the setback however, Favorito believes the case – and the ballot scans and inspection – will ultimately take place.
“I feel like the case is still going to move forward. Inspections will most likely happen. Who knows? It might be another 30-60 days but…it’s still going to go forward,” he said.