Fulton judge rules that election certification is mandatory in Georgia
Last edited Tue Oct 15, 2024, 10:52 AM - Edit history (1)
Source: Atlanta Journal Constitution
Certifying elections is a required duty of county election boards in Georgia, and theyre not allowed to refuse finalizing results based on suspicions of miscounts or fraud, a Fulton County judge ruled Tuesday.
Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney rejected claims brought by Fulton County election board member Julie Adams, who voted against certifying this springs presidential primary.
McBurney ruled that Georgia law requires certification, and county election boards dont have any discretion not to do so.
If election superintendents were, as plaintiff urges, free to play investigator, prosecutor, jury, and judge and so because of a unilateral determination of error or fraud refuse to certify election results, Georgia voters would be silenced, McBurney wrote Our Constitution and our election code do not allow for that to happen.
Read more: https://www.ajc.com/politics/a-judge-ruled-that-county-election-board-members-in-georgia-must-certify-elections/635RIP3ILBC4ZH5AGMMSQXPYBQ/
Link to tweet
LetMyPeopleVote
(155,396 posts)ananda
(30,916 posts)!!!
PJMcK
(22,996 posts)K & R
JohnSJ
(96,798 posts)BumRushDaShow
(144,003 posts)The SCOTUS normally doesn't interfere in "states rights" elections issues when it has to do with their state laws and/or state Constitution.
JohnSJ
(96,798 posts)BumRushDaShow
(144,003 posts)it had to do with counting.
In this case, it is related to the role of an election board that was created under state law and even the top election officials in the state like Raffesperger, have insisted that the board does not have the "authority" that they claim they have. Raffensperger would be the one to do the certification for the state.
JohnSJ
(96,798 posts)BumRushDaShow
(144,003 posts)The flippancy of John Robert's directives and sudden (fake) being shocked by the blow-back, makes one wonder.
JohnSJ
(96,798 posts)BumRushDaShow
(144,003 posts)because I am sure they will appeal (because "Disruption Я Them" ).
3825-87867
(1,146 posts)One for Harris,
One for Trump,
One for Harris.
Two for Trump.
One for Harris,
Three for Trump,
One for Harris,
11,781 for Trump.
Ok I'll certify now.
Trump wins 11, 787 for Trump!
However, falsifying election results is
One to 10 for each offense!*
Is it worth it folk?
*Except if you're a Republican! Then it's sweeping parks for 2 weeks.
AZSkiffyGeek
(12,657 posts)I guess there's no point in voting. Trump appreciates your efforts!
3825-87867
(1,146 posts)There are 3 pro trump election officials set to certify the count. The meaning was to make fun of the way the pro trumpers would count the votes to verify and certify trump. That info has been available to read if you wish elsewhere before conclusions are jumped to.
Not sure about your intended snark of your comment about trump appreciating efforts. But I guess you get to interpret whatever whether people know the whole story or simply jump to conclusions.
Been fun.
prodigitalson
(2,932 posts)from John Barron
MayReasonRule
(1,922 posts)McBurney has ruled against him time and time again.
I would think that Trump would consider him a primary target.
Trump has threatened violence and death since before he ran for POTUS.
He has now escalated his threats of violence death to include anyone or any group he considers to be radicals.
His top targets would be all Democratic Party members in positions of power...
Such as Biden and Harris et al...
In my view he's already issued the threat against McBurney.
Let's see if he calls it out in real time...
sheshe2
(88,091 posts)iluvtennis
(20,941 posts)PedroXimenez
(627 posts)GOP thinking, "he says that like it's a bad thing"
Mysterian
(5,202 posts)If the bumpkins try their traitor shit again, lock their stupid asses in jail.
republianmushroom
(18,140 posts)MayReasonRule
(1,922 posts)SCOTUS will ruefully find that it's too late to do anything this close to the election, but order you to comply with the law in the NEXT election, and then lather, rinse, repeat...
Quanto Magnus
(1,029 posts)are going to try it anyway.
Bayard
(24,145 posts)MayReasonRule
(1,922 posts)...is that the operative statutory language was "shall" so certifying results wasn't discretionary. It's a plain language, "read as written" judicial decision that conservatives wanted back in the day when they complained about "activist" judges.
This is pretty much cook book statutory interpretation. "Shall" = "must"
Frank D. Lincoln
(644 posts)LetMyPeopleVote
(155,396 posts)If election board officials in Georgia are thinking about refusing to certify election results they don't like, a judge has now told them they can't.
Link to tweet
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/judge-georgia-must-certify-election-results-regardless-outcome-rcna175460
After the 2020 elections, several local Republican election board members refused to certify elections for a variety of assorted and dubious reasons, and there are plenty of concerns that there will be related tactics in this years cycle. Its against this backdrop that a Georgia judge issued a ruling this week rejecting this as a possibility. The Atlanta Journal Constitution reported on Tuesday:
Certifying elections is a required duty of county election boards in Georgia, and theyre not allowed to refuse finalizing results based on suspicions of miscounts or fraud, a Fulton County judge ruled Tuesday. Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney rejected claims brought by Fulton County election board member Julie Adams, who voted against certifying this springs presidential primary. McBurney ruled that Georgia law requires certification, and county election boards dont have any discretion not to do so.
......Indeed, my colleague Lisa Rubin published a report last month in which she characterized this case as one of the most critical trials of the 2024 election season. Lisa explained:
Imagine a world in which local election board members are empowered, through the guise of doing their own research, to delay or refuse the certification of county results. That could hold up the certification of the entire states results and even potentially its certificate appointing electors. And if that were to happen, Georgias missing electors would be subtracted from the total needed to win the electoral college. Put another way, the failure to certify thousands of votes could end up depriving the rightful winner of a presidency voted upon by nearly 200 million.
With this in mind, its a big deal that McBurney ruled that Georgia law requires certification, and the matter is not discretionary for members of local election boards.