1. ROLL CALL
Karli Swift, Chair – present
Vasu Abhiraman, Vice Chair – present
Nancy Jester, Acting Chair – not present
Susan Motter – present
Tony Lewis – present
(Challenger Bill Henderson attempts to speak and is rebuffed by Chair Swift)
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Lewis proposes adding establishing a date to consider -230 and -229 challenges along with Item 6B.
Approved with amendment 4 – 0
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES from 08-08-24
Approved 4 – 0
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Connor Hayashi: Suggests challengers be required to pay $2.30 per challenged voter to cover administrative costs.
Gail A. Lee: Contends that the 90-day moratorium on voter challenges before an election is not relevant to §21-2-230 challenges because -230 challenges are not a removal challenges; “It simply requires the registrant to provide relevant proof of eligibility before their vote is counted.” Lee thinks the 45-day moratorium is what’s relevant to -230 challenges, and feels DeKalb BRE is in violation of GA law for not hearing such challenges “immediately” as required in §21-2-230(b).
Bill Henderson: says he submitted his challenges between August 19 and 28, and the BRE should have heard those challenges already. He objects to the idea of his being charged for challenges since they require time on his part which he does not charge for. Victor Tripp: names various statutes that say that it’s the duty of the BRE to update voter rolls. He says that anyone who puts false information on the voter rolls is guilty of a felony. Tripp adds that the NVRA says that anyone who knowingly deprives the public of a fair election shall be fined or imprisoned.
Kendra Biegalski: says the BRE should not vote on the resolution in 6B because it was only posted for the public the previous day (9/11/24). Biegalski claims the Georgia Administrative Procedures Act 50, 1340(a)1 requires 30 days prior notification and describes various penalties for violating this.
Carmen Tripp: also describes Administrative Procedures Act.
Toya Elizabeth Hines: feels she has been wrongfully terminated because of her filing a complaint. She describes her dedication to elections work and requests reinstatement. Bonnie Chapel: was election observer at Stonecrest and thinks Hines was an exemplary employee.
William Freeman is a co-worker of Ms. Hines who expresses support for her reinstatement.
India Simmons: is a coworker of Ms. Hines who has worked in labor and HR and thinks Hines deserves an explanation about her termination.
Elizabeth Shackelford: sees voter challenges as partisan attacks that harm unhoused people. Occasional errors in the voter rolls don’t change election outcomes.
Pam Woodley: says voter fraud does not exist. She is concerned about many people being moved to inactive status despite their registrations not changing. She appreciates increases in poll worker pay.
Nancy Arnold: says ballots cast by ineligible parties disenfranchise her vote. She blames the BRE for not removing ineligible voters.
Catherine Howland: wants the vote on the resolution postponed because she thinks it should be made public for 30 days prior to approval.
Patrick Henry: feels bringing large numbers of challenges before an election is a vote suppression tactic. Wants challengers to have to pay a fee.
Jane Darnell: is afraid legitimate voters will be wrongly moved to inactive status due to current challenges. Worries challenges weaken faith in elections.
Beth Levine: thanks board and elections staff for extending voting hours. She thinks DeKalb BRE tries to do the right thing despite recent actions by the State Election Board and trusts them to certify upcoming elections.
Liz Throop: commends board for updating guidelines about challenges and mentions recent DOJ statement about challenges based merely on information from databases.
Jim Duffy: has lived in his house six years but is still getting election mail addressed to the prior resident. He wants this addressed.
Cheryl Dudley: thinks there is nothing wrong with our elections. She thinks removing people from the rolls through challenges is a cheating tactic.
Anita Harris: says her family experienced discrimination and says all our privileges stem from voting.
5. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
A. Director’s Report (p. 7)
Director Smith reviews items in the packet (pages 7 – x). She says, anyone updating their driver’s license information who doesn’t opt out of the “Do you want to register to vote?” question will prompt a new VR application that DeKalb has to touch. 97% of their poll worker positions are filled. Workers are being trained on the new Poll Pad printers. They are proofing 428 ballot styles, each with about 50 contests. DeKalb begins LAT on Monday. Smith says they have “changed the mandate that required one machine for each 250 voters.” They have allocated the number of scanners at different polling places based on whether they have under 3500 voters, 3500 – 4999 voters, 5000 – 7000 voters, or over 7000 voters.They have recently filled four positions and are trying to hire two more. They have a National Urban Fellow working in Communications.
The department is now using CB360 for the budget.
They are publicizing key election dates and will add October 7 as first day they can mail Absentee Ballots. Smith reviews those dates and encourages people to request and return mail ballots as soon as possible because of USPS. The “I voted” sticker contest deadline has been extended.
Motter would like staff to create a FAQ for college students and their families about their Absentee Ballot concerns. She encourages voters to go to less-busy Advance Voting locations, and Smith says they will be publicizing their new online Wait Time Calculator. They are putting signs outside each Advance polling site listing alternate locations.
Smith says they have enough poll workers to require full shifts but will try partial shifts during a smaller election year.
Lewis and Smith discuss the budget report.
Abhiraman points out that on page 7 of the packet, registrations just received from DDS are listed under “Inactive Voters” but should be under their own header.
Smith says list maintenance moved 86,000 to Inactive Voter status, mostly because of returned precinct cards. SOS will send these people cards, and if voters return them, they are moved off inactive status.
Swift points out that voting or requesting and Absentee ballot moves one off Inactive Status.
6. ITEMS FOR DECISION
Advance Voting Drop Box Locations
Smith says full list of Voter ID documentation is on their website. She discusses their only being allowed 5 dropboxes. Their plan is to put a dropbox at Neighborhood Church and have a staff member receive Absentees at their Memorial Drive location. The staff member will time stamp the Absentee and put it in a box. The only changed dropbox location is the move from Lynwood back to Briarwood.
Motter moves that Neighborhood Church be added as an Advance location. Passes 4 – 0
B. Voter Challenges Scheduling Resolution
Attorney Vivian Ernstes describes the resolution on page 16 of the packet and states the legal precedents underlying the text regarding the 90-day quiet period. She details lack of individualized or first-hand information as disqualifying for challenges during this period. It describes the four prongs of a systematic challenge. The resolution tells the board to publicly list dates for the hearings for each challenge. Ernstes says the Majority Forward case decided that §21-2-230 challenges are subject to the 90-day quiet period. She explains that the Administrative Procedures Act does not apply to county boards, which are not state agencies. Therefore the resolution of the DeKalb BRE is not required to give 30- day public notification.
Motter moves to approve the resolution relating to the scheduling of voter challenges received less than 90 days prior to an election.
Bill Henderson again attempts to interrupt.
Lewis asks Ernstes why the Majority Forward decision means the NVRA applies to systematic voter challenges. Lewis notes that §21-2-230 is not in accordance with federal law. Ernstes says it’s not a matter of debate whether the NVRA applies, and the DOJ just confirmed that fact on Monday. Even though -230 does not remove voters from the rolls, per se, “it is a distinction without a difference.”
Lewis asks what “individualized” and “reliable” mean in this context.
Ernstes says public commenter Duffy is an example of someone with “individualized” knowledge about a voter because he has first-hand knowledge of who lives at his address. She says one can bring systematic challenges, but not right before an election and that the 90-day period is the federal requirement. Ernestes says looking at a list is not “reliable” information. She says the Majority Forward case addresses the risk of removing people when it’s too late to be rectified.
Lewis asks if it’s OK to bring a -230 hearing before an election if the hearing is held after certification. He and Ernstes discuss whether Frazier v Fulton County applies to DeKalb County.
Abhiraman points out that if a -230 challenge is based on individualized information, a determination could be made before certification. He says DeKalb is constrained in how it defines its policies, unlike the SEB.
Motter thanks Atty. Ernstes.
Swift points out one of the four prongs of a systematic challenge is first-hand information regarding individual voters, which current challenges lack.
Motter offers amendment that establishes general time frames rather than specific dates. She moves they amend the motion to establish two dates: non-systematic challenges will be heard at the next meeting and systematic challenges will be heard after state certification of the runoff at the first regular meeting January.
Carries 3 – 1
Lewis moves to set dates to hear individualized challenges at the next regular meeting and non-individualized and any new challenges in January.
Carries 4 – 0
Swift calls for the vote on adopting guidelines.
Carries 4 – 0
C. Voter Challenge Procedures
1. O.C.G.A. 21-2-229 (p. 18)
Motter moves to adopt.
Lewis wants to know why federal law controls.
Carries 3 -1
2. O.C.G.A. 21-2-230 (p. 23)
Motter moves to adopt.
Carries 4 – 0
7. EXECUTIVE SESSION
N/A
8. BOARD COMMENTS
Abhiraman discusses systematic challenges. He suggests that, if the election office can’t systematically remove voters from the rolls without notifying them and giving them time to rectify, then individuals should not be allowed to do so.
Attorneys, staff, and public commenters are thanked.
9. ADJOURNMENT 7:10pm
Be First to Comment