by Dave Williams | Capitol Beat News Service
ATLANTA – Lawyers representing civil rights and voting rights groups asked the Georgia Supreme Court Wednesday to uphold a lower-court ruling that invalidated seven controversial changes to state election laws the Republican-controlled State Election Board (SEB) adopted last fall.
But lawyers for the state, the Republican National Committee and the Georgia Republican Party argued the plaintiffs lacked legal standing to bring their lawsuit and that the SEB was within its rights to approve the new election rules.
The new SEB rules would have required counties to hand-count the number of ballots cast at polling places on Election Day and allowed local election officials to delay certifying results in order to conduct a “reasonable inquiry” if they suspect voter fraud. Other changes included a requirement that signatures and photo IDs accompany absentee ballots, that video surveillance be provided at absentee ballot drop boxes, and that designated areas for poll watchers be expanded.
Fulton County Superior Court Judge Thomas Cox Jr. invalidated the changes in a ruling last October, declaring the SEB lacked the legal authority to adopt them.
On Wednesday, Christopher Anulewicz, a lawyer representing plaintiff Eternal Vigilance Action, a Georgia-based advocacy group headed by former Republican state Rep. Scot Turner, argued the SEB strayed into the General Assembly’s constitutional jurisdiction when it adopted the rules changes.
“The SEB is acting in violation of the separation of powers doctrine by engaging in legislative activity,” Anulewicz said. “The separation of powers issue is the driver of this case.”
But Gilbert Dickey, representing the state and national Republican parties, said multiple branches of state government – in this case, the legislative and executive branches – can legally exercise authority in some instances.
“The mere act of the legislature would not prevent the executive from exercising further guidance,” he said.
Bryan Tyson, representing the state, maintained the plaintiffs lacked legal standing to bring the case because the standards governing the right to sue the state government are especially strict.
“There’s something more required when you bring action against the state,” he said. “That is absent in this case.”
