|
March 25, 2026
Dear County Election Officials and Boards of Commissioners,
Senator Greg Dolezal’s election bill, HB 960, (one he was permitted by Senate leaders to hijack) is now headed to the Senate floor for a vote — as early as Friday.
While the bill contains numerous unworkable provisions, we are writing to alert you to one issue that directly affects you and your county’s budget this year.
HB 960 will impose tens of millions of dollars in new, undisclosed, and unfunded costs on Georgia counties to pay for extreme needless requirements for manual vote counting.
Executive Summary (What You Need to Know Immediately)
• No fiscal note for county cost impacts: The bill is moving forward without the legally required local impact fiscal note under O.C.G.A. § 28-5-49 (Call your Senators and remind them that they must not permit an unlawful floor vote without publicly disclosing the cost impact on your counties.)
• Massive new costs: Counties will bear tens of millions of dollars in new expenses starting this year — with no state funding
• Four rounds of counting: Major races are likely to be counted four times
• Weeks-long process: Certification timelines will likely be delayed.
• Operational burden: Manual recounts require large bi-partisan teams, complex procedures, and extensive reconciliation of inevitable human errors, even when outcomes are not in question. (Even after they have been audited!)
What HB 960 Requires Counties to Do
Under this bill, counties could be required to conduct multiple layers of redundant counting for top-of-the-ballot races (e.g., U.S. Senate, Governor, and other statewide and federal Congressional contests) in primaries and general election:
1. Machine tabulation (current standard process)
2. Manual “call-out” comparison of poll tapes
• Detailed tallies must be read out “slowly and audibly” and compared to an unspecified record
• Any discrepancy — which is inevitable in this tedious time consuming process — will trigger further full manual counts prior to certification.
3. Mandatory Risk Limiting Audits for top two races (in current law)
4. Mandatory post-certification manual recounts of all top several races.
• Required regardless of margin, even in races that are not competitive or close.
What This Means for Your County
This is not theoretical — the operational impact is severe:
These recount requirements would occur for primaries, primary runoff, general election and general election runoffs, ---requiring these recounts be undertaken multiple times during even numbered years:
• Sorting requirement: Ballots must be sorted by precinct before manual counting
→ sorting alone adds an estimated 30–40% more labor time than was required for your 2020 manual audit of POTUS race.
• Batch counting rules: Ballots counted in small batches (e.g., 30 ballots) with full reconciliation of inevitable discrepancies.
• Staffing burden: Recount teams must include appointed representatives from multiple political parties
• Error reconciliation: Manual counting discrepancies must be resolved against machine totals, even if race is not close. (Very tedious costly process.)
Cost Reality
Consider your county’s experience in 2020:
• The presidential audit (one race only) took 2–3 days in many counties
• It did not require:
• Sorting ballots by precinct and reporting and reconciliation by precinct
• Counting multiple races
Under HB 960:
• Your people would be counting multiple races
• With more complex procedures
• Over a much longer time period
Estimated impact:
• Fulton County’s ~$500,000 2020 audit could exceed $2 million under this model (just for one election.)
• Statewide, counties face tens of millions of dollars in unfunded mandates for unnecessary hand counting of ballots.
A Clear Legal Problem
Georgia law requires transparency before imposing these costs:
O.C.G.A. § 28-5-49 requires a local fiscal impact statement before a committee or floor vote on legislation imposing significant costs on counties.
No such fiscal note has been provided. The cost of this proposal has been hidden from the lawmakers and counties.
Why This Matters
HB 960:
• Dramatically increases costs
• Introduces operational complexity and delays
• Requires redundant processes with no demonstrated benefit
This is not an incremental change.
It is a fundamental and costly overhaul of election operations — imposed without disclosure or funding.
What You Should Do Now
This bill is moving quickly to the Senate floor.
We strongly urge you to:
• Contact your State Senator immediately
• Demand compliance with O.C.G.A. § 28-5-49 --full local fiscal impact be disclosed before any more votes.
Final Note
Counties will be responsible for implementing — and paying for — this system.
You deserve full transparency before being asked to absorb these costs.
We will follow up with additional analysis of the severe policy and operational flaws in HB 960.
For now, the immediate issue is clear:
This bill imposes major costs and election process delays on counties without disclosure, justification, or funding.
We urge your immediate attention and action.
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.
| 
