Brief of Amici Curiae History Profs. in Sup. of Petitioners

1899), the Georgia Supreme Court similarly confirmed the mandatory nature of the duty to certify and underscored the risks of weaponizing the certification process: It certainly can not be doubted that if there was a total failure on the part of the election superintendents of the county to take any action towards consolidating the vote, the writ of mandamus to compel the performance of this duty. [...] The Court held as follows: We think that the duties of the mayor and council here defined are those of a canvassing board, and that the board can not go outside of the official returns and receive evidence as to the qualifications of voters, or act in any way in connection therewith except to declare the result of the election on any evidence except the official returns. [...] * * * The canvassing board can not go behind the returns of the election officers to determine the results of an election … The duties of canvassers are purely ministerial; they perform the mathematical act of tabulating the votes of the different precincts as the returns come to them … The determination as to the result of an election by a canvass of the returns by the city council is not a judic. [...] Similar to the arguments made in favor of the new SEB rules, the losing candidate argued that “when fraud or mistake is brought to the attention of the consolidating superintendents of election returns of 14 the county, they have the right, while the ballots are in their possession, to examine the same, ascertain if the precinct return corresponds with the ballots, if necessary recount the ballots. [...] This canvassing of the returns and declaration of the result were constitutional directives to the General Assembly, and its failure to observe them ought not to defeat the right of the person elected or the franchise of the voters who elected him.