By Staff Writer
Georgia election watchdog Garland Favorito and the advocacy group VoterGA have raised alarms over what they describe as a secret bunker where Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger’s office plans to aggregate statewide election results for the 2026 cycle a secured Emergency Operations Center (EOC) that critics say is closed to the public, candidates and even some members of the State Election Board.
Favorito, a longtime election integrity activist who leads VoterGA, says the facility is off limits for canvass observation and that the state’s planned procedures amount to secret aggregation that violates state transparency laws. Multiple candidates have filed lawsuits seeking emergency court orders to compel the Secretary of State to allow observers and board members meaningful access to the aggregation process ahead of the 2026 elections, VoterGA says.
The Secretary of State’s office has described the EOC model as a standard continuity and security practice. EOCs are designed to centralize critical operations during emergencies and to provide hardened infrastructure redundant power, controlled network access and physical security intended to protect systems from cyber attacks, tampering or other disruptions. State officials argue that protecting the integrity and availability of state wide reporting systems requires limiting physical access to essential personnel and operating from secured facilities.
Favorito and the plaintiffs argue that aggregating statewide totals in a restricted EOC without public, in person observation violates Georgia election law and long standing expectations of transparency during canvassing and aggregation. Complaints filed by candidates and parties and public statements from VoterGA contend that even members of Georgia’s State Election Board, who have statutory oversight responsibilities, have been denied adequate access to watch the aggregation process, which undercuts official oversight and voter confidence.
Legal issues at stake include whether Georgia’s election code requires physical public observation of every step of canvass and aggregation, whether remote or limited observation meets statutory requirements, and whether emergency authority procedures can lawfully override regular transparency obligations. Plaintiffs are seeking emergency injunctive relief that would compel the Secretary of State to permit in person observation or, at a minimum, live remote observation that is functionally equivalent to being present.
The lawsuits could move quickly if courts view plaintiffs’ claims as raising imminent harm to transparency before the 2026 cycle. Judges may consider ordering temporary measures such as in person access for observers, live video feeds of aggregation activities, audited logs or other transparency protocols while litigation proceeds. The State Election Board’s role could be pivotal, if board members demand access and issue formal findings, that may affect judicial scrutiny and public pressure.
Legal disputes over access often hinge on whether the state has implemented technical and procedural safeguards that provide the same level of verifying ability as in person observation. Measures that officials cite to balance security and transparency include.
Controlled public viewing windows or observation rooms that do not permit direct access to equipment.
Audit logs, chain of custody documentation, and cryptographic hashing of result files to allow,
Formal observer accreditation and scheduled, supervised viewing times.
Risk limiting audits and robust post election audits with public reporting.
Critics say such measures are often insufficient if observers cannot watch the hands on steps of canvass and aggregation or independently verify that procedures were followed in real time. Plaintiffs are arguing that only direct observation or functionally equivalent live feeds and unfiltered access for board members will satisfy statutory transparency requirements.
The dispute arrives amid heightened politicization of election administration in Georgia, a state that has been the focus of election related litigation and intense public scrutiny since the 2020 cycle. For candidates and parties, access to aggregation procedures is not only a matter of principle but also one of competitive fairness. The timing, handling and reconciliation of precinct and county data can affect public confidence in reported outcomes. For election administrators, the concern is balancing transparency with the need to protect systems against real cyber security threats.
Plaintiffs are seeking emergency relief, courts could impose access rules or require the state to publish detailed observation protocols before the next elections.
The Secretary of State could publish or refine written procedures for observation, auditing, or remote access to address transparency claims.
Lawmakers concerned about clarity in the law could move to revise statutes or rules outlining where and how aggregation and canvassing must be observable.
Independent post election audits and public reporting could help restore confidence if paired with clear observation procedures.
Sources;
Georgia Election Integrity Series: https://voterga.org/news/
Atlanta Journal-Constitution — “Meet Garland Favorito, Georgia’s most influential conspiracy theorist” (Jan 5, 2026): https://www.ajc.com/politics/2026/01/meet-georgias-most-influential-conspiracy-theorist/ AJC
Atlanta Journal-Constitution — “Judge dismisses claims in lawsuit that sought Fulton County 2020 ballots” (Feb 5, 2026): https://www.ajc.com/politics/2026/02/judge-dismisses-claims-in-lawsuit-that-sought-fulton-county-2020-ballots/ AJC
VoterGA — Legal / court filings and statements (VoterGA legal-action page, includes petitions, motions, and other filings by Garland Favorito and VoterGA): https://voterga.org/legal-action/ voterga.org
