ACLU of Georgia

How SB202 Changes...

County Election Administration

Hover over the yellow boxes to see the changes

Before SB202

Election offices could accept funding from non-governmental sources.

After SB202 (Current Law)

Bans outside funding and gifts to election offices (via election officials and superintendents).
§21-2-71(b) & §21-2-212; S.B. 202 §9

CONSEQUENCES

  • Does nothing to address the resulting budget shortfall.
  • Leaves the door open for Boards of Commissioners to accept funds on behalf of election offices.

Before SB202

No poll watcher training requirements.

After SB202 (Current Law)

Party and candidate-appointed poll watchers must receive training
§21-2-408(e); S.B. 202 §32

CONSEQUENCES

  • Reduces disruptions by untrained poll watchers.

Before SB202

Poll workers could only serve in the county they reside.

After SB202 (Current Law)

Poll workers may serve in adjoining counties if their superintendent waives the residency requirement.
§21-2-92(a)(2); S.B. 202 §11

CONSEQUENCES

  • Reduces poll worker staffing strain on metro counties.

Before SB202

No state-wide requirements on precinct size adjustment due to issues in prior election(s).

After SB202 (Current Law)

Precincts with more than 2000 electors AND lines lasting longer than one hour during the previous general election must be reduced in size and/or be provided with additional equipment and poll workers before the next general election.
§21-2-263(b); S.B. 202 §18

CONSEQUENCES

  • Provides method to break up precincts with too many voters.

Before SB202

250 electors per voting booth formula applied to all elections.

After SB202 (Current Law)

250 electors per voting booth formula only applies to general elections. Superintendent can increase or decrease equipment allocation for non-general elections.
§21-2-267(b)(1)&(2); S.B. 202 §22

CONSEQUENCES

  • Provides counties with more leeway on equipment allocation outside general elections.

Before SB202

Municipal authorities were not required to investigate or consider unfounded voter challenges.

After SB202 (Current Law)

Any elector of a county may challenge the qualifications of any person(s) or their right to vote in an election. Challenged voters must be informed in writing and a hearing must be set within ten days. There is no limit on the number of challenges that can be raised. Failure to comply will invite SEB performance review.
§21-2-229(a)(b); S.B. 202 § 15; & § 21-2-230 (a)(b), S.B. 202 §16

CONSEQUENCES

  • There is no limiting factor on the challenge process, which will open the floodgates to massive voter challenges and could cripple election offices during election time.