Court Rejects Challenge to Georgia’s Election System

1 Apr at 4:55 pm

2911 posts

Court Rejects Challenge to Georgia’s Election System \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ A federal judge has declined to block Georgia’s electronic voting system, ruling that plaintiffs lacked standing despite presenting concerns about security vulnerabilities. The long-running lawsuit, which began before the 2020 election, raised alarms over potential vote manipulation via QR codes. Judge Amy Totenberg acknowledged flaws but allowed the system to remain.

Georgia Voting System Ruling: Quick Looks

Federal judge rules plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge voting system
Activists claimed system vulnerabilities could compromise vote integrity
Lawsuit began in 2017, long before 2020 election controversy
Touchscreen voting machines use QR codes to tally selections
Plaintiffs argued QR codes are not verifiable by voters
Judge Totenberg says issues exist, but no proven voter harm
Georgia law will require QR codes removed by 2026
Dominion Voting Systems and election security back in spotlight
State officials say system is secure and reliable
Ruling seen as win for Secretary of State Raffensperger

Deep Look

In a decision that underscores the legal complexities of voting system challenges, U.S. District Judge Amy Totenberg ruled this week that Georgia’s electronic voting system may continue to be used, ending a years-long legal battle over election integrity, security, and voter trust. The judge dismissed the lawsuit not because she found the system flawless—but because the plaintiffs lacked standing, a crucial legal threshold required to bring a constitutional challenge in federal court.

The lawsuit was initiated in 2017, three years before Georgia became a national focal point during the 2020 presidential election. The plaintiffs included individual voters and the Coalition for Good Governance, an election integrity nonprofit led by Marilyn Marks. Originally aimed at Georgia’s outdated, paperless voting machines, the suit evolved in 2019 to target the Dominion Voting Systems equipment adopted by the state, which now includes touchscreen ballot-marking devices (BMDs) that produce both a human-readable summary and a QR code—the latter being used to tally votes.

At the heart of the lawsuit was a fundamental question about transparency and verifiability: can voters truly confirm that their choices are being counted as cast if the actual votes are recorded in a QR code they cannot read?

Standing and Legal Thresholds: Why the Case Was Dismissed

Judge Totenberg’s dismissal of the case hinged on Article III standing—whether plaintiffs had shown concrete injury traceable to the voting system, and whether the court could provide relief. In her ruling, she stated that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate they had been denied the right to vote, nor did they show their votes were diluted or discarded. Without that proof of direct harm, Totenberg wrote, the court was barred from evaluating the constitutional claims, regardless of their merit.

This conclusion frustrated the plaintiffs and their legal team. “It’s a serious misinterpretation of the law,” said Marilyn Marks, who urged the state to move toward hand-marked paper ballots in upcoming elections. Attorney David Cross, representing individual voters, pointed to Supreme Court precedent affirming the right to have votes counted accurately, arguing that the ruling “vitiates that right.”

While Judge Totenberg’s decision legally favors the state, she did not dismiss the broader concerns raised by the plaintiffs. In fact, she acknowledged that their work has sparked legislative reforms and brought critical attention to how Georgia manages its elections.

Security Concerns: From Academic Findings to Real-World Implications

Central to the plaintiffs’ case was the expert testimony of Dr. J. Alex Halderman, a respected cybersecurity expert and professor at the University of Michigan. Halderman, in both his testimony and a 2021 report prepared for this litigation, identified several vulnerabilities in Georgia’s voting system. He described how attackers could theoretically manipulate QR codes, install malware, and obtain sensitive system passwords.

Although Halderman emphasized that there was no evidence these vulnerabilities had been exploited, his findings were serious enough to prompt the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) to issue a 2022 advisory. That bulletin warned election officials in jurisdictions using Dominion BMDs to adopt additional security practices to mitigate risk.

Despite those warnings, Georgia election officials—led by Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger—decided to postpone key software updates until after the 2024 elections, citing implementation complexity and fears of disruption. Instead, they emphasized other layers of election security, such as physical protections, chain-of-custody protocols, and post-election audits.

In Monday’s ruling, Judge Totenberg referenced Halderman’s findings and the CISA advisory, noting that the expert’s work revealed “substantial concerns about the administration, maintenance, and security” of the system. Nonetheless, she concluded that the plaintiffs’ inability to prove injury meant the court could not weigh in on the system’s legality.

Georgia’s Voting System: A National Flashpoint

Georgia has been at the center of nationwide election disputes since 2020, when President Donald Trump lost the state narrowly to Joe Biden and falsely claimed the election was rigged. Conspiracy theories quickly spread, with Dominion’s machines becoming the focus of baseless claims of vote manipulation. Many of those theories drew from misunderstood or misrepresented portions of Judge Totenberg’s earlier preliminary rulings in this very case.

Yet it’s critical to distinguish the timeline. The lawsuit long predates the 2020 election and was not based on fraud allegations—it was based on concerns about system design, voter confidence, and technical vulnerabilities.

In that context, Monday’s decision underscores the tension between legal standards and public perception. While election officials celebrate the ruling as a “vindication,” critics say the deeper questions about trust and transparency remain unanswered.

What Changes Are Coming?

In response to growing concerns, Georgia lawmakers passed legislation in 2023 requiring the removal of QR codes from ballots by July 2026. The law reflects a bipartisan recognition that QR code-based vote recording undermines voter confidence, even if the codes are not easily exploited.

However, Judge Totenberg noted that the 2026 mandate is contingent on funding and government action, leaving it far from guaranteed. Without additional investment, the controversial QR code system could persist into future election cycles, including the crucial 2024 presidential election.

Looking Ahead: Legal, Political, and Civic Implications

Judge Totenberg’s ruling does not resolve the deeper philosophical question: should a voting system require voters to trust technology they cannot verify? Even though the lawsuit failed on procedural grounds, it has ignited broader debates about what makes a voting system trustworthy.

To that end, many states and security experts continue to advocate for hand-marked paper ballots, which are easier to audit, less prone to cyberattack, and more transparent to voters. Georgia now finds itself caught between its investment in high-tech systems and the grassroots demand for simpler, auditable elections.

While the court case is closed, the conversation around it is far from over. With the 2024 election looming, Georgia’s voting systems will again come under the microscope—and the questions raised by this lawsuit will likely echo into future debates over election reform, cybersecurity, and public trust in American democracy.