1. ROLL CALL
Karli Swift, Chair – not present
Vasu Abhiraman, Vice Chair – not present until later
Nancy Jester, Acting Chair – present
Susan Motter – present
Tony Lewis – present
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Approved 4 – 0
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES from 07-11-24
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Betsy Shackelford: Lies were told at the recent SEB meeting regarding elections True the Vote and Eagle AI and USPS date should not be the basis for challenges. Anyone with a problematic registration should be left on the rolls for two federal election cycles.
Lisa Wright: As a poll worker, she knows there is no voter fraud. Challenges burden threshold.
Stephen Cook: Wants free and fair elections.
Janet Grant: Challenges brought today by Mr. Tripp shouldn’t proceed because it is 90 days from a federal election, and he has no personal knowledge of the voters. Data entry errors by administrators should not be the basis of challenges, and moving to another state is not a crime. Only 2 active voters on Tripp’s list.
Karen McCown: Previous challenges should not be entertained again.
Cheryl Dudley: Objects to Trump’s remarks about GA SEB at his recent rally. Thinks investigating Fulton Co. again is wrong.
Naomi Bock: Homeless should be entitled to vote. It’s hard to define what a “reasonable” assurance of accuracy means for election certification. Worries what Trump means by saying we will never have to vote again.
Toi Elizabeth Hines: She is a poll worker who wants to be reinstated and doesn’t know why she was fired. She was told it wasn’t about her performance, and she worries it’s about her complaint regarding the compliance oMicer.
Gail Lee: Complains about a passage in §4B of DeKalb’s Procedures for Responding to Voter Challenges and wants it deleted or modified.
§4(b) If no response to the BRE’s written notice of challenge is received from the challenged voter, the BRE shall inform the challenger that the challenge does not present grounds to contest the eligibility of the voter to remain on the DeKalb County voter list and no further action shall be taken on the challenge.
Joan Webb: Says Lee’s challenge regard’s voter’s current residence, not previous residence. Asks them to update §4B in procedures.
Lynn Hesse: Retired police officer who values her constitutional right to vote. DeKalb’s current roll updating procedures are fine and challenges burden that system.
Kathleen Hamill: Involved in Georgia Democracy Task Force, which helps reinforce the rule of law. She understands that certification is non-discretionary, the law saying the election SHALL be certified.
Bethann Frillman: Thanks Elections staff and board. Agrees that changes to election certification and today’s elections challenges are problems.
Catherine Carter: If it’s appropriate, she would help contact challenged voters, so they don’t get removed from the rolls.
Doug Cumming: Thinks elections oMicials should be neutral “umpires of democracy” and thinks voter challenges sow distrust.
Nancy Arnold: Needs assurance that non-citizens can’t vote.
Online:
Jim Leiffbac: GA SEB may be in court for their recent actions.
Commenter: GA SOS already updates rolls so challenges aren’t necessary.
Amy Swygert: Challenges are a waste of money.
5. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
A. VOTER CHALLENGE PROCEDURES (pp. 5 – 12 of packet)
Atty Momo: Mentions 21-2-229 procedures in relation to NVRA.
Chair Swift: Moves to discuss Procedures for Responding to Voter Challenges, explaining the blockout period for removing voters due to challenges begins the 5th Monday prior to voting. There is confusion because recently passed SB 189 is not consistent with federal NVRA laws. Board must revise their procedures to be explicit about whether they are following state or federal law.
Jester asks staff for specific dates regarding when SB202 and SB189 were in effect. Says she will review §4B in their procedures.
Motter explains that federal laws take precedence over state laws regarding a “quiet period” before elections. Wants the revised procedures to make this explicit in a heading paragraph.
Lewis asks for §6 of revised procedures to include a time limit for voters to respond to county inquiries. He’s concerned about slowness of mail system. Also thinks giving just three days’ notice for a voter to respond to a hearing notice is too short: “… sufficiently in advance” is not clear enough. He recalls a lawsuit against the BRE regarding challenges, and that it was settled out of court, so they never got an opinion about whether they need to comply with federal law.
Swift: Points out that §4B must be read in context: “If the challenger fails to aMirmatively state in writing that the challenge is based upon the challenged voter’s residency status at the time the voter initially registered to vote, then the BRE shall follow these protocols:” Swift comments on paragraph 5, which does not specify the number of days for the voter to respond. Atty Momo says legal will review. Swift doesn’t want to limit a voter’s abililty to come to hearing and respond to a complaint.
Swift asks attorneys for the insertion of text about procedures regarding inactive voters. Motter requests a side-by-side comparison of procedures for conducting §21-2-229 and §21-2-230 hearings so she can see if they comply with federal laws. She would like comments to the side of the main text explaining which laws underlie each part. These should not be modifications of the main text.
Jester learns that §-230 challenges only determine probable cause, and that today’s challenges, if found to have merit, must be followed by §-229 challenges on a subsequent date. Jester withdraws an earlier motion.
B. DIRECTOR’S REPORT (p. 13 of packet)
Smith says that Dekalb has under 500,000 active voters and 38,000 inactive voters. She says law limits the number of dropboxes based on the number of active voters, so that DeKalb may have to remove its Memorial Drive dropbox. Voters could still come inside the building to the clerk’s oMice to drop oM ballots. The final determination for number of dropboxes will be the Friday before Advance Voting. DeKalb is verifying signatures to determine which candidates will be on the November ballot.
Smith says her office learned about the GA SOS online voter registration cancellation portal on Monday Aug 4, and that they are learning how to revise their procedures for updating rolls based on this development. She said they have deleted voters from the rolls based on the portal if cancellations are deemed legitimate. She says they are treating cancellations from the portal the same as if they were cancellations sent in as letters. Smith said they have over 1,000 poll workers and hope to have 1600 to 1650 by November. DeKalb is meeting with other counties in GAVREO Region 3 to discuss increasing poll worker pay rates. She says the budget is within projections and mentions DeKalb’s “I Voted” sticker contest. (p. 18 of packet)
Lewis asks if office will need more funds from the county, and Smith says they may need about $5 million more for poll worker pay. They will purchase printers for the Poll Pads for use in Advance Voting. This fall Advance voters will not fill out paper oaths but will just sign the Poll Pads. (See Budget at pp. 14, 15 of packet)
Jester withdraws her earlier motion to adopt the challenges, because those could only happen at a subsequent meeting once probably cause has been determined.
6. ITEMS FOR DECISION
A. Advance Voting locations (pp. 19, 20 of packet)
Motter reminds public to check the map online to see whether an Advance Voting location is busy before going to vote, as some are far less busy than others.
Smith notes that GA law prevents counties from holding Advance Voting in facilities that are neither government buildings nor Election Day voting locations. This means there are few or no appropriate Advance Voting facilities in central and South DeKalb. She reminds voters to vote early and says they will develop signs telling voters where other Advance sites are, in case there are lines.
Swift asks if Northlake Library and any place in Candler Park can be Advance sites. The former Sam’s Club in Stonecrest not available due to HVAC problems. Swift suggests lengthening Saturday voting hours to 9am – 7pm on October 19 and 25. Jester moves to delay approving new sites and longer hours, and board discusses preapproving Director Smith’s expanding locations and times within limits. Approved 5 – 0
B. Probable Cause Determination for Voter Challenges pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 21-2230
1. Victor Tripp challenges submitted July 26, 2024 (pp. 21 – 28of packet)
Tripp claims Homeland Security determined nine vulnerabilities with Georgia’s voting system and says the Absentee chain of custody system is broken. His challenges are based on voters having birthdates of 1900 or 1901, which he thinks would mean that they are not alive. He thinks living voters could easily provide their correct birthdates when they appear at the polls. Jester learns the standard for probable cause is “reasonable belief that the voter is not qualified.” Swift says the Election oGice did not try to verify Tripp’s charges.
Tripp says he got information for the charges from the rolls on the SOS website, and Motter confirms that Tripp doesn’t know any of the voters personally. Tripp says Gail Lee was helpful in assembling the data. Tripp put the data in a spreadsheet and ordered voters by DOB. Motter points out the “90-day quiet period” required by federal law. She says the whole challenge would have needed to have been completed by 08/07/24 for voters to be removed for the November election. Tripp responds that he doesn’t mind challenged voters staying on the roll, as long as they are not allowed to vote. He says voters could also confirm that their ages are legitimate (under 120 years old).
Swift explains that, within the quiet period, §-230 challenges require both a determination of probable cause and a hearing on the challenges themselves.
Lewis wonders why they are having a probable cause hearing if they are in the NVRA quiet period. In response, Momo describes the exceptions for mental disability, felon status, etc. described in §230 and says that being deceased is an applicable condition. It’s discussed whether people with incorrect birthdates can vote regular ballots or provisionals, and whether they would need to reregister to correct a mistake. Only 5 of the 181 challenged voters have voted recently. 170 were unsuccessfully challenged in 2023 for a birthdate reason.
Everyone discusses whether Tripp’s challenge is a “Programmatic review” in the context of §-230. Attorney Phillips says §-230 bans challenger “programming” challenges.
Jester says she’s concerned that 3 of BRE members are attorneys and are oGering partisan opinions on the matter, but Swift says they are oGering opinions simply as board members. Smith confirms that registrations with bad dates were input by the SOS oGice, not DeKalb elections. Motter mentions a lawsuit “Majority Forward v Ben Hill County Board of elections, 2020,” diGerentiating between challenges based on mass data comparisons and challenges based on individualized investigations.
Jester moves that they determine probable cause for Tripp’s challenge.
Fails 2 – 3.
Motter moves that they determine no probable cause for Tripp’s challenge. Passes 3 – 2.
2. Gail Lee challenges submitted July 30, 2024 (pp. 29 – 55 of packet)
Jester moves to open discussion. Lee says board should have copies of her individualized 230 challenge forms, which are a thick pile.
BREAK 7:35 – 7:50 to find Lee’s forms. Apparently Abhiraman did not return to the meeting after the break.
Gail Lee says that under her challenge of moved-out-of-state people, voters who show up at polls can vote if they can prove they have been living in DeKalb continuously. Lee says in all cases the voter submitted a postal COA that matched the present addresses of people with the same name. She says some of them have voted at their new addresses. She can’t
see voters’ full DOB, but Dekalb can access that info. Lee does not allege anyone voted in both GA and their new state of residence.
She says she learned how to do this from Eagle AI, but she and Joan Webb collected all the data themselves from USPS COA database and SOS voter rolls.
Atty Momo observes that even under the NVRA restrictions, out of state voters can be removed from the rolls, if probable cause is found. The second hearing must be before certification of the next election. Challenges must be based on individualized information. If voter doesn’t show up to vote, they can be removed from the rolls after the election. Lee says she has not attempted to contact anyone on the list, and that she chose to research TX and OH because those states list voters’ DOB publicly.
Motter again mentions a lawsuit diGerentiating between challenges based on mass data comparisons and challenges based on individualized investigations. Attorney Viviane Ernstes describes this case and the importance of individualized investigation, and Lee responds that the voters’ registration at their new addresses was individualized input.
Swift says Lee submitted many individual forms, but the process was still systematic and all in information was substantially the same.
Jester asks if Lee could successfully challenge by submitting each form a day apart and Atty. Ernstes says no, because probable cause is based on the quality of the evidence. Swift, Jester, Lewis, and Motter vote to determine probable cause of Lee’s challenge. Fails 2 – 2 because 3 votes are required to pass.
7. EXECUTIVE SESSION
MEETING ADJOURNED
Be First to Comment