The invalidated rules, which were approved by the Republican-led State Election Board prior to the 2024 general election, faced significant opposition from election officials and voting rights groups.

Among the overturned rules were requirements for hand-counting ballots after polls closed and allowing county election boards to conduct inquiries before certifying results.

The court criticized the board's prior rule that permitted county board members to conduct inquiries into vote legitimacy, stating it could delay results and contradicted state law.

The State Election Board, which has a majority of Trump-endorsed Republicans, introduced these controversial rules in August and September 2024, leading to multiple lawsuits.

Chief Justice Nels Peterson emphasized that while the rules might not directly lead to vote rejection, the potential threat to voter rights justified legal standing for the lawsuit.

This ruling limits the rulemaking power of the State Election Board and reinforces that legislative powers are reserved for the General Assembly under the state constitution.

Chief Justice Peterson warned against allowing the legislature to transfer essential legislative functions to administrative agencies, which could undermine individual liberties.

Discussions regarding the measures may continue in the legislature, where some Republican lawmakers are looking to codify the proposals into law.

As new election laws take effect in 2024, the State Election Board plans to revise its rulemaking process to prevent future issues, potentially forming a committee to vet new rules.

On June 10, 2025, the Georgia Supreme Court unanimously struck down four election rules established by the State Election Board, asserting that the board had overstepped its constitutional authority.

The court determined that these rules were adopted beyond the authority granted to the State Election Board by the Georgia General Assembly.

Challengers, including the organization Eternal Vigilance Action and individuals Scot Turner and James Hall, argued that the rules contradicted the state Election Code and exceeded the board's authority.