A federal judge has ruled that vote challenges by the election integrity nonprofit True the Vote during the 2020 election in Georgia did not constitute a breach of the Voting Rights Act. District judge Steve C. Jones, in a 145-page ruling, asserted the organization’s actions did not break the law, citing lack of sufficient evidence of any voter intimidation from the group’s actions.

True the Vote, it’s founder Catherine Englebrecht, data scientist Mark Davis, and others had called attention to the presence of voters with potentially inaccurate address information in their registration records following the 2020 Presidential Election. In the weeks leading up to the state’s January 5, 2021, runoff elections for the U.S. Senate, they arranged for volunteers in 40 Georgia counties to formally challenge eligibility of many of these voters, as permitted under Georgia law.

The challenges centered upon some 39,000 voters whose mailing addresses conflicted with the voters’ address of record in the state’s voter registration data. These voters were initially identified from USPS change of address filings. The challenge list was then trimmed down by removal of inactive voters; those absent from the 2020 Presidential Election; and intra-county voters. In addition, an intensive effort was made to filter out voters who would typically vote absentee (such as members of the military).

The judge’s decision was in regard to a lawsuit filed by the organization Fair Fight Inc., founded by former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacy Abrams. The lawsuit claimed that these challenges violated the voters’ civil rights; in particular, that they amounted to voter intimidation.

The judge wrote, in his decision:

“Having heard the evidence presented and the arguments made by the Parties, the Court maintains its prior concerns about the manner Defendants utilized (Georgia law) to challenge individual voters. The Court, however, ultimately concludes that, as a legal matter, Plaintiffs have not carried their burden to show a violation of Section 11(b) (of the Voting Rights Act.) Accordingly, the Court enters judgment in favor (of) Defendants.“

“There is no evidence that Defendants attempted to make any of the voters in this case feel timid or fearful, or that they experienced any actual reasonable intimidation“.

The case represents a significant step in a positive direction for protecting the right of the public, including nonprofit organizations, to challenge election processes showing evidence of flaws. True-the-Vote’s challenge touched on two important responsibilities of election authorities: to maintain accurate registration records and to safeguard against inclusion of ineligible voters. Such watchdog activities hold state and local election officials accountable to the voters for keeping elections fair and secure.

Critics of True the Vote’s actions in Georgia have expressed concern that voting became more difficult for the challenged voters. However, the organization should be commended for highlighting the need for better maintenance of voter address records.

What constructive lessons can we draw from this case?

• That the election authorities might have been able to dismiss challenges more readily had they validated addresses more frequently. 

• That many voters possibly could have facilitated dismal of challenges by placing themselves on the absentee ballot list in a timelier manner.

• That it might be helpful to include indicators of absentee status in the public version of the voter registration list, to help repel challenges of the kind pursued here.

With the proliferation of no-excuse mail-in voting, it has become more important than ever that voter registration data be up to date and accurate, to protect against misuse of the records. The burden of maintaining accuracy of the data, including by checking for unauthorized changes or tampering., should not fall entirely on election administrators. It is important to educate the voting public to be more actively involved in this endeavor.

Posted by Unrivaled Politico