Senate committee backs sweeping election changes including hand‑marked paper ballots and new audit rules

A committee substitute to SB568, presented by Chairman Dolezal, won committee approval after an extended hearing that drew county election officials, state board members and dozens of public speakers.

The substitute would move Georgia toward hand‑marked paper ballots for federal and statewide offices, eliminate QR codes and require serialized (and amended to batched‑serialized) ballot identifiers. It would also change audits — moving from a risk‑limiting audit framework to a manual audit model for specified contests — raise the recount threshold and make ballot images and security logs publicly available within a set timeline. The bill includes requirements to publish an eligible‑voter denominator at the start of early voting, expand voter‑roll challenge procedures with stronger enforcement and civil fines for failures to comply, and direct the state to furnish a "uniform voting system." Sponsor Dolezal said the measure is intended to comply with the legislature’s prior ban on QR codes and to provide a secure, auditable process similar to systems used in other states.

Election‑management groups and county officials offered technical and operational pushback. Gabriel‑affiliated officials and poll‑worker advocates warned the committee that implementing hand‑marked ballots statewide without ballot‑on‑demand printers or a full procurement plan could cause logistical chaos, especially in large counties with dozens of early‑voting sites. Tate Ball, a former election official with federal and state experience, cautioned that other states that use hand‑marked systems rely on ballot‑on‑demand printing and vote centers and that Georgia’s timelines are tight for training and procurement.

Fulton and Gwinnett county officials raised specific concerns about assigned early‑voting locations and the administrative burden of stocking permutations of preprinted ballots. Supporters, including representatives of the Georgia Republican Party and some local registrars, argued the bill will increase confidence in election results, clean up voter rolls and help prevent improper registrations. Several speakers described localized problems with registrations and urged stronger enforcement.

The committee considered and adopted a set of amendments, including language to serialize ballot batches and to change the recount threshold from 2% to 1% in several referenced lines. A rival amendment to delay implementation one year (to July 1, 2027) was defeated. After debate and multiple hours of testimony, the committee voted to advance the bill as amended.

The record shows central outstanding issues: procurement and training timelines (including whether ballot‑on‑demand printers can be procured statewide before the next major election), the practical effect of assigned early‑voting locations on voter access in large counties, and how audits and recounts will be executed under the new rules. Proponents say those are implementation details for the procurement and appropriations process; opponents say the bill requires significant appropriations and planning that were not provided in the committee substitute.

The measure now moves toward floor consideration, where senators may further refine timelines, appropriations and technical standards.