Donald Gainsborough stands at the center of the legislative storm as a leading expert in policy and election law, currently steering the strategic direction of Government Curated. His career has been defined by a deep-seated commitment to understanding how the cogs of government turn, specifically when it comes to the sensitive and often contentious realm of voting integrity. In this conversation, we look at the shifting tides in Georgia’s election landscape, where a recent legislative pivot has delayed a controversial ban on QR codes while signaling a massive shift toward hand-marked paper ballots by 2028. Gainsborough provides a nuanced look at the $107 million investment in current voting technology, the logistical hurdles of on-demand printing at the polls, and the potential for increased human error as the state moves away from machine-marked precision.
The legislative struggle to fund a new voting system has seemingly created a sense of instability for Georgia’s upcoming election cycles; how do you view the impact of missing the initial July 1 deadline?
The tension in the Georgia State House was palpable as the July 1 deadline approached, a self-imposed cutoff established by a 2024 law that was supposed to end the use of QR codes for counting ballots. However, the high-stakes reality is that lawmakers failed to appropriate the necessary funds to make that massive transition happen in time, creating a looming crisis for the state’s 159 counties. By signing the updated bill into law, Governor Brian Kemp has essentially bought the state a reprieve, extending the use of QR codes until 2028 to avoid a total collapse of the voting infrastructure during a critical period. It is a classic legislative balancing act—attempting to meet the urgent demand for paper-based security while facing the cold, hard reality of a state budget that was not ready to absorb the costs of an immediate overhaul. This delay isn’t just about logistics; it’s a four-year window intended to soothe the anxieties of local election officials who were looking at an impossible task without the proper financial backing or technical preparation.
What specific factors motivated the shift away from the $107 million machine-marking system that has been the state standard since the 2020 election?
The current system, manufactured by Liberty Vote and purchased for a staggering $107 million back in 2019, has been under a microscopic and often hostile lens since it was first deployed statewide in 2020. The political climate shifted dramatically after that election, with intense pressure from conservative advocates and figures like Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell, who leveled accusations of vote-switching and rigging that led to massive settlements for the company. Even though these claims were legally and factually refuted, the resulting atmosphere of distrust has pushed Republican lawmakers to pivot toward hand-marked paper ballots as a way to restore voter confidence. Representative Tim Fleming’s late-stage amendment to the elections bill specifically targets a move away from those machine-marked systems, favoring a method where the voter’s own hand provides the primary record of their intent. This isn’t just a change in hardware; it’s a fundamental move to distance Georgia’s voting process from the controversies that have shadowed Liberty Vote for years, even if it means moving toward a slower, more analog process.
Could you elaborate on the logistical challenges and risks that experts see in the proposed ballot-on-demand printing method?
The preference for on-demand printing—where a voter receives a unique ballot printed specifically for them after they check in at the polling place—introduces a layer of technical dependency that makes many election experts, including Mark Lindeman of Verified Voting, quite nervous. While at least five U.S.-based companies offer this technology, relying on it for every single in-person voter on Election Day creates a potential single point of failure that could lead to long lines and frustrated citizens. If a printer jams, runs out of specialized ink, or suffers a software glitch at a busy precinct, there is no “Plan B” if the state hasn’t also invested in a traditional stockpile of pre-printed ballots. Most states use a hybrid approach to mitigate this risk, but Fleming’s amendment leans heavily into the on-demand model, which would be a distinctive and perhaps precarious path for a state with such a high volume of voters. We are talking about a system that must function flawlessly across thousands of locations simultaneously, and there is a very real fear that the “last opportunity to vote” could be compromised by a simple hardware malfunction.
How might the transition to hand-marked ballots affect the accuracy and finality of election results during the recount process, particularly regarding voter intent?
One of the most significant shifts we will see involves the interpretation of “voter intent,” a concept that is currently handled with digital precision by our machine-marking devices. Joseph Kirk, the Bartow County elections director, has pointed out that digital selections leave little room for ambiguity—the machine doesn’t let you make stray marks or accidentally select two candidates. With hand-marked ballots, the human element returns in full force, meaning that during a recount, election workers will have to make subjective calls on ballots that aren’t perfectly filled out or where a voter tried to cross out a mistake. This variability means that margins of victory could fluctuate much more significantly during a hand recount than they do under the current system, which is a prospect that local officials are already bracing for. It’s an acceptable trade-off for many who prioritize the physical security of paper, but it requires a massive operational shift for a workforce that has become accustomed to the clean, binary data provided by machines since 2019.
What concerns have been raised regarding the transparency of the special committee tasked with selecting the state’s next voting system?
There is a growing chorus of concern, led by voices like Representative Saira Draper, regarding how these major policy shifts were introduced—specifically through late-minute amendments during committee meetings that didn’t allow for public comment. The establishment of a special committee to pick the next system is a sound idea in theory, but by narrowing their focus to hand-marked paper ballots before they’ve even begun their work, some feel the Legislature is unnecessarily restricting the options. Critics argue that a process of this magnitude, which will dictate the voting experience for millions of people across 159 counties, should be handled with maximum transparency and a wide-open scope to explore all available technologies. Instead, the perception is that the parameters were boxed in during a legislative rush, potentially doing a disservice to the integrity of the eventual selection. While the 2028 deadline provides a much-needed cushion for the transition, the “how” and “why” of the committee’s eventual choice will remain under intense scrutiny to ensure it isn’t just a political reaction, but a robust technical solution for the long term.
What is your forecast for Georgia’s 2028 election transition?
My forecast is that we are entering a period of prolonged administrative growing pains where the state will struggle with the dual burden of maintaining an aging machine system while training for a completely different manual one. The four-year window until 2028 seems long, but in the world of government procurement and training, it is a blink of an eye, especially when you consider that the state must replace an infrastructure that originally cost $107 million. We will likely see a significant amount of friction between state leaders and local directors as they navigate the costs of on-demand printers and the increased labor costs associated with more frequent hand-counting and auditing requirements. Ultimately, the success of this transition won’t be measured by the technology itself, but by whether the voters feel their intent is accurately captured on that piece of paper, regardless of the “stray marks” or “confusing intent” that local officials like Joseph Kirk are worried about. It’s going to be a bumpy ride, but it is a necessary evolution for a state that has become the epicenter of the American debate over how we count our voices and verify our results.
