Lawfare: “The changes have ignited breathless media coverage over the past several weeks, as commentators forecast how former President Donald Trump and his allies could delay certification in another attempt to reject an unfavorable presidential election outcome. Over at the Bulwark, A.B. Stoddard sums up Trump’s supposed legal strategy for Stop the Steal 2.0 as follows: “Refuse to certify anywhere—even a county that Trump won—and prevent certification in that state, which prevents certification of the presidential election.” According to the New York Times, delays could throw the election into a “legal gray area” that would give Trump’s allies in Congress political cover to reject electoral slates. Rachel Maddow envisions a scenario in which Trump upends the outcome of the election by ensuring that no electoral votes from Georgia are counted at all.
All of which would be quite alarming—if there was any real chance that things could play out that way. And the mischief being perpetrated by the board is certainly pernicious and may very well fuel postelection lawlessness by county officials who don’t like the results of the election. But the more alarmed commentators are overstating the case about what is happening in Georgia. They are overstating what the board has done, because they are overestimating what the board can do under the law. In reality, the board’s power to interfere with the certification process is pretty minimal….
Let’s unpack the three rules at the center of the controversy: the “reasonable inquiry” rule, the “examination” rule, and the new “hand count” rule that showed up last week. A close read reveals that the legal and practical import of the rules will almost certainly not hamstring the certification of Georgia’s electoral votes. And even if certification is delayed for some reason, such delays do not open up a legal loophole for Trump to overturn the election.”