REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE v. ETERNAL VIGILANCE ACTION, INC. (Two Cases)

In 2024 the State Election Board adopted seven new rules covering things like hand-counting ballots, examining election documents before certification, and requiring photo ID for people dropping off someone else's absentee ballot. A nonprofit group, its director, and a Chatham County election board member sued the State, arguing the rules were unconstitutional and conflicted with Georgia's Election Code. A trial court agreed and blocked the rules before the November 2024 election. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Georgia first had to decide who could even bring these claims. It ruled that organizations cannot sue just because dealing with a rule diverts their resources, and it eliminated a related doctrine letting groups sue on behalf of their members. Individual voters, however, could challenge five rules touching their right to vote. The court then overturned a 1990 precedent that had allowed broad, unguided delegations of lawmaking power to agencies, and applying the stricter standard, found four of those five rules went beyond what the legislature authorized. Only the drop box video surveillance rule survived.

Organizations and associations lack standing to sue based merely on diverted resources or on behalf of members' rights; only individual voters whose own voting rights are threatened may sue. Applying a stricter nondelegation standard that overturns prior precedent, four of five challenged rules exceed the Election Board's statutory authority and are invalid, while the drop box surveillance rule is valid.

The ruling narrows who can sue over state election rules in Georgia, cutting off advocacy groups from directly challenging agency action, and it strikes down rules on hand-counting ballots, document examination, and drop-off ID requirements, reshaping how counties administer future elections.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated and remanded in part

1. The court held that under Georgia's Judicial Power Paragraph, a plaintiff must show a violation of his own legal right, not just a factual harm, to have standing; this ruled out the 'diversion of resources' theory the organizations relied on, since it rests on factual harm rather than a violated right.
2. The court overruled its prior adoption of federal 'associational standing,' which let groups sue to vindicate members' rights, concluding it was an uncritical import of federal doctrine inconsistent with Georgia's requirement that a plaintiff assert only his own rights.
3. The court found individual voters had standing to challenge five rules affecting how votes are cast, delivered, or counted, because an infringement of the fundamental right to vote is itself a personal injury sufficient for standing, even without proof the harm has already occurred.
4. The court remanded the question of whether a plaintiff who is also a county election board member has separate standing in that capacity, since the trial court had not properly analyzed that distinct constitutional question.
5. Applying the nondelegation doctrine, which limits how much lawmaking authority the legislature can hand to an executive agency without clear guidelines, the court overruled a 1990 case that had approved vague statutory language as sufficient guidance, and instead required agency rules to be consistent with specific, detailed statutory provisions.
6. Measuring the five rules against the actual text of the Election Code, the court found four rules (covering document examination, hand counting, certification inquiries, and drop-off ID requirements) added requirements beyond what the statutes allowed, while the drop box surveillance rule merely filled a gap left open by a statute that already required constant surveillance.

• State Election Board rules
• standing to sue
• nondelegation doctrine
• ballot drop boxes
• hand counting ballots