The Center for Election Confidence (CEC) submitted comments to the Georgia State Election Board concerning proposed amendments to Rule 183-1-11-.01 governing ballot secrecy, accessible voting equipment, ballot rescanning, and electronic ballot-image identifiers.

CEC supports the proposed rule’s core purpose of protecting the secrecy of every elector’s ballot. The comments support extending the existing privacy rule to all voters and establishing express protections for voters using accessible ballot-marking devices. CEC urged the Board to clarify ambiguous language concerning devices “outfitted for accessibility devices” to ensure that privacy protections extend to a voter’s entire accessible voting configuration, including assistive technology, audio ballots, tactile controls, and communications with an authorized assistant.

CEC also recommended stronger safeguards when ballots must be rescanned. Rather than relying only on instructions to “thoroughly shuffle” ballots, the final rule should require a documented legal basis for rescanning, controlled randomization within existing ballot-accounting units, bipartisan or multipartisan observation, and reconciliation before and after the process. Original ballot images, cast-vote records, and other electronic records should not be overwritten when ballots are rescanned. “Randomization must not destroy the audit trail,” CEC explained. Original records should instead be preserved and replacement records linked to their source records so election officials can protect ballot secrecy without sacrificing chain of custody or auditability.

Randomization must not destroy the audit trail

The comments further urged the Board to define what constitutes “proper randomization” of ballot-image identifiers and to account for testing and approval requirements before election-system software changes are deployed. Because the proposed September 15 deadline coincides with the beginning of Georgia’s scheduled transmission of UOCAVA ballots for the November general election, CEC recommended that the rule provide for a written contingency and implementation plan if the contemplated changes cannot safely and lawfully be completed by that date. Software should not be deployed without the testing, state review, and any other approval applicable to the particular change.

Finally, CEC recommended making indistinguishability the general rule for ballots produced by accessible voting devices when compared to other ballots marked at the polling place. If complete compliance is technically or legally impossible because hand-marking ballots is the primary method at a polling place, election officials should achieve substantial compliance to the maximum extent practicable, minimize any distinguishing characteristics, and publicly document and preserve any deviation from the general rule.

CEC urged the Board to adopt the ballot-secrecy amendments with these safeguards so Georgia can protect voter privacy without sacrificing ballot accounting, accessibility, transparency, or confidence in the State’s election system.