Georgia Poised To Define When Hand‑Marked Ballots Replace Touchscreens — State Election Board to Vote

ATLANTA — Georgia's State Election Board is preparing to vote on a proposed regulation that would specify when hand‑marked paper ballots may be used as an emergency backup if touchscreen voting machines cannot be used. The rule would define two trigger terms — "impossible" and "impracticable" — and list the circumstances under which election officials could switch to pen‑filled paper ballots.

What The Proposal Would Do

The draft rule, scheduled for a vote Wednesday, lays out examples that could qualify as emergencies, including power outages, mechanical failures, and problems that prevent voters from seeing and verifying their choices in a human‑readable format. It also cites situations that could threaten ballot secrecy or make deployment of the system unlawful under state or federal law.

Supporters Say It Provides Needed Clarity

Proponents, including Jeanne Dufort, a county Democratic official and one of the bipartisan drafters, say the language offers clear, practical guidance to local election officials deciding whether touchscreen equipment can be used on election day. "These definitions provide a critical guideline to help officials determine when machines are not usable," Dufort said.

Critics Warn Of Overreach

Opponents argue the board may be exceeding its authority by effectively expanding or reinterpreting state law. Earlier this year, the Georgia Supreme Court said the State Election Board may adopt rules to "implement and enforce" election statutes but cannot "go beyond, change or contradict" them; that ruling came after litigation over a set of rules adopted before last year's election.

"The statutes were never intended to give the power to invalidate voting systems," said Kristin Nabers, state director for All Voting Is Local, criticizing language she says could be used to halt the use of certified equipment.

Board Deliberations And Political Pushback

Sara Tindall Ghazal, the board's lone Democrat and its only lawyer, raised concerns about scope and worked with drafters on revisions; she abstained from an October vote that opened the rule for public comment. Ghazal said she sees "impossible" or "impracticable" as referring to unexpected, sudden circumstances rather than ongoing or anticipated conditions.

State Rep. Victor Anderson, vice chair of a legislative study committee on elections, has urged the board to reconsider or redraft the proposal, saying lawmakers are addressing broader concerns about the machines through the legislative process.

Background On Georgia's Voting System

Georgia's statewide voting system uses touchscreen terminals that print a paper record showing a human‑readable list of a voter's selections alongside a QR code that is scanned to count votes. The system was implemented statewide before the 2020 primaries and has been the focus of intense public debate: critics question whether voters can independently verify votes and whether the devices adequately protect ballot secrecy; election officials and the secretary of state's office maintain the system is secure and that Georgia's results are accurate and reliable.

Key Elements Of The Proposed Definitions

The draft defines "impossible" to mean voting equipment cannot be used at a polling place because of conditions beyond the reasonable control of election officials or because its use would be unlawful under state or federal law. Qualifying examples include power loss, mechanical failure, the inability of voters to read and verify votes in a human‑readable format, and failure to deploy machines in a way that protects ballot secrecy.

"Impracticable" would mean that using the machines cannot reasonably be carried out without jeopardizing voters' ability to cast a timely, secure, accurate, or secret ballot — for example, when machines cannot be arranged to preserve ballot secrecy or to serve voters in a timely manner.

Both definitions would also allow a determination by the State Election Board, the secretary of state, or a court that the equipment "violates state or federal law" or is otherwise impossible or impracticable to be treated as a qualifying circumstance that could trigger emergency paper ballots.

The board's vote this week will determine whether the definitions become an official guide for local officials and how tightly Georgia limits the circumstances that permit a switch from touchscreen machines to hand‑marked paper ballots on election day.