|
We sent the following email to Georgia State Senators planning a vote on HB960, which should be sidelined and not considered.
March 26, 2026
Dear Georgia State Senators:
We write to urge you not to proceed to a floor vote on HB 960 (Senator Dolezal's election bill ) until the legally required disclosure of major cost impacts to counties has been made in a fiscal note as required by law.
This bill is being advanced without clarity, without cost disclosure, and without a workable implementation path. It imposes infeasible sweeping operational mandates on counties that cannot be executed within the proposed timeline and will needlessly cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars in election years.
Executive Summary (For Immediate Consideration)
• Unlawful process: HB 960 is moving forward without the required local fiscal note under O.C.G.A. § 28-5-49.
• Massive unfunded mandate: Counties face tens of millions in new costs annually with no state funding.
• Four rounds of counting: Major races are likely to be counted four times, including mandatory full manual recounts (even for races that are not close)
• De facto hand-count elections: The bill creates a backdoor scheme that forces widespread manual counting of almost all races.
• Impossible timeline: The bill implicitly requires a new statewide voting system by July 1, 2026 — which cannot be procured, certified, or deployed in that time.
• Bill cannot be explained: The bill sponsor (Senator Dolezal) has not clearly articulated how these provisions would work operationally or what it would cost.
Details and Context
1. Four Rounds of Vote Counting — At Extraordinary Cost
HB 960 requires multiple overlapping unnecessary counting and recounting for major statewide and federal races regardless of margin of victory:
1. Machine tabulation; then
2. Machine tally “call-out” comparison of poll tapes (read “slowly and audibly”) against unspecified documents will trigger discrepancies and manual counts; then
3. Risk-limiting audits of major races (already required under current law), followed by certification; then
4. Mandatory full manual recount of major races — regardless of margin or audit results.
• Any discrepancy in the tally call-out process — (errors are inevitable) — can trigger full manual recounts
• These recounts apply to multiple races, not just one. (Section 12)
• They must be conducted by precinct and voting method, dramatically increasing unjustifiable work outside of a needed legitimate recount.
Details are here, as we informed county officials.
This is not a safeguard. This is not reform.
It is a quadruple-counting regime that multiplies cost, causes delay in finalizing elections, and undermines public confidence.
No other state has any such nonsensical vote counting scheme, nor has even seriously considered such proposals in legislation.
2. Tens of Millions in Unfunded County Costs — No Fiscal Note
HB 960 imposes:
• Mandatory manual recounts across primaries, runoffs, and general elections
• Large-scale staffing requirements (multi-party teams)
• Extensive ballot sorting, batching, and reconciliation
These are not election reforms— they are structural cost and timeline drivers. They would be terribly disruptive to the state’s electoral process.
Yet:
No local impact fiscal note has been prepared or disclosed, as required by O.C.G.A. § 28-5-49.
• Costs could reach tens of millions statewide annually.
• Counties — not the state — will bear these costs.
A vote under these circumstances should not be taken without lawmakers or counties knowing what county taxpayers are being asked to fund.
3. Backdoor to Hand Counting the Entire Election (before the post-certification mandatory recounts) — Expect Discrepancies
Section 11 effectively mandates manual counting (prior to certification and the manual recounts) through an unworkable process:
• Poll tape tally details must be read aloud “slowly and audibly”
• Compared to unspecified records
• Any discrepancy (or county superintendent’s discretion) triggers full manual counts
• Discrepancies are inevitable in such a process
• This creates a de facto hand-count election scheme, with major races counted once by machine and 3 times by hand count.
This is not an election safeguard.
It is a system designed to trigger repeated manual counts and disrupt election timelines organized election administration.
4. Implicit Requirement for a New Voting System — Not Achievable
Senator Dolezal says we must ditch the Dominion system but refuses to describe how a new system would be purchased and deployed by his deadline of July 1, 2026, when an 18 month process is the minimum time necessary for new system selection and deployment.
He claims that we only need "some additional scanners," but fails to explain what system they would be dropped into, if not the Dominion system, which he says must go.
He claims that $15 million is allocated in the budget for a new system, while the House is estimating that $150 million for a new system is required. Both estimates are wildly inaccurate on the low side and high side for a hand marked paper ballot system. But Georgia already owns a hand marked paper ballot system and has plenty of scanners. We just don’t use it the way it was designed as a hand marked paper ballot system.
It’s impossible to tell what Senator Dolezal and his bill are requiring. A hint can be found in his requirement for the accessibility units for voters with disabilities.
Section 7 fundamentally changes how such votes must be tabulated:
• Requires tabulation based on human-readable text, a tabulation method not available on Dominion systems.
Georgia’s current system cannot do this.
This implies, the replacement of the entire system, (likely $40-$60 million) over an 18 month period. (Not by July 1, 2026) This is not feasible.
None of this was addressed in the Senate Ethics Committee meeting before the vote.
5. The Bill Is Not Ready for a Vote
HB 960:
• Lacks a fiscal note
• Lacks operational clarity
• Imposes infeasible requirements
• Creates massive, unfunded obligations for counties
This is not a policy refinement. It is a fundamental restructuring of election operations without cost disclosure or implementation feasibility, or any policy justification.
What We Urge You To Do
Before any floor vote:
•Require full compliance with O.C.G.A. § 28-5-49, by demanding a complete local fiscal impact statement before any vote
• Require clear explanation of implementation and system requirements. (Keep or replace the current system?)
• Require a realistic timetable.
•.Require a realistic state budget item for equipment purchase.
Final Point
You are being asked to vote on a bill (in violation of law) that:
• Cannot be implemented on the timeline provided
• Cannot be explained operationally
• And cannot be funded without imposing substantial burdens on counties
Until those facts are disclosed and understood, this bill should not proceed to a vote.
Marilyn Marks
Executive Director
Coalition for Good Governance
Marilyn@uscgg.org
Join our mailing list here.
About Coalition for Good Governance
Coalition for Good Governance is a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to protecting voters’ rights to secure, fair, and transparent elections with verifiable outcomes. The Coalition works to ensure that every voter can cast a completely secret ballot and have confidence in the accuracy and integrity of election results.
| 
