Georgia's Structural Dysfunction Prevents Election Crime Prosecution
Source: Mark Davis. "Why Election Crimes Are Rarely Prosecuted In Georgia." February 11, 2026. thefederalist.com
The Gist
Georgia rarely prosecutes election crimes because different state offices keep passing the buck to each other, with politicians more interested in protecting themselves than enforcing the law. The author argues this needs to be fixed with clear rules about who's responsible for what.
Conclusion
Georgia's election crimes are rarely prosecuted due to structural dysfunction and jurisdictional conflicts between state offices, requiring legislative reform to establish clear authority and accountability
Premises
- The Georgia State Election Board has faced a backlog of 315 cases, with Secretary of State Raffensperger controlling which cases reach the board for adjudication
- Raffensperger exercises a 'pocket veto' by delaying or withholding cases from the board, sometimes for years, as demonstrated by the 2020 tabulator tape case not heard until 2022
- Attorney General Chris Carr claims jurisdiction over 'certain' election crimes but his office states no criminal matters have been referred to them, only civil matters
- Carr's office has produced no evidence of criminally prosecuting anyone for election offenses in a decade, despite having successfully lobbied for jurisdiction in other areas like gang prosecution
- The current system creates jurisdictional confusion where cases can be shuffled between the Secretary of State, State Election Board, Attorney General, and local district attorneys without clear accountability
- Political conflicts between Raffensperger and Carr, both running for governor in 2026, create additional obstacles to effective prosecution of election crimes
- Local district attorneys are often overwhelmed, lack election law experience, or may be politically aligned with those they would investigate
Assumptions
- Election crimes are actually occurring in Georgia and warrant prosecution
- The backlog of cases and jurisdictional shuffling represents intentional obstruction rather than legitimate administrative challenges
- Political motivations are influencing prosecutorial decisions more than legal merits
- Clear jurisdictional authority would lead to more effective prosecution of election crimes
- Public confidence in elections depends on visible accountability for election law violations