The resolution followed revelations that months-long public records delays stemmed from a board member’s use of a private Gmail account for election-related matters.
The dispute might have remained a bureaucratic footnote had it not escalated into a lawsuit by American Oversight, a nonpartisan nonprofit dedicated to enforcing the public’s right to government records. Its successful legal challenge has now reshaped how one of the nation’s most closely watched election boards must operate: On November 12, the State Election Board agreed to settle the case, pay $50,000, and instruct all members to use government email accounts exclusively, while ensuring that every communication—whether email, text or messages sent on apps like Signal—is properly retained and accessible under Georgia’s Open Records Act.
The implications extend well beyond email addresses. Public records are the backbone of election oversight.
The settlement is significant because it marks the latest front in the state’s battle over transparency.
American Oversight filed its lawsuit in July 2024 after board member Janice Johnston denied access to her private Gmail account, contributing to delays of up to six months in fulfilling records requests. The inquiries involved election-related communications, rulemaking and policy decisions—matters central to public confidence.
Following the suit, the board shifted from Gmail to Georgia’s standard Microsoft Outlook system, enabling the open records officer to search for official communications without obstruction. The settlement requires members to forward all board-related messages from personal accounts to their government email addresses so they can be properly archived and produced. In addition, the board must provide compliance instructions to every current member within five business days.
The settlement resolves the case without any admission of liability. Yet for transparency advocates, the agreement represents a substantive corrective. “Today’s settlement makes it clear that election officials are not above the law—they must comply with state transparency requirements, and if they don’t, they will be held accountable,” American Oversight Executive Director Chioma Chukwu said.
For open government advocates, the email lawsuit fits within a broader trend. American Oversight recently prevailed in a related case at the Georgia Court of Appeals, where judges found that the board’s decision-making had violated the Georgia Open Meetings Act. That ruling reinstated a separate lawsuit, reinforcing the principle that election officials cannot conduct critical deliberations outside public view.
The implications extend well beyond email addresses. Public records are the backbone of election oversight, not least because they illuminate how rules are drafted, how complaints are evaluated, how investigations proceed, and—crucially—how the State Election Board interprets its mandate. When those records vanish into private inboxes or encrypted channels, accountability fractures. When the information flows freely, communities gain the wherewithal to separate fact from fiction.
The board denied violating transparency laws, and the settlement includes a standard clause dismissing the suit “with prejudice” once all terms are met—including payment and compliance instructions—meaning the same claims cannot be refiled if the board follows through. The agreement nonetheless reinforces transparency obligations and establishes a clear safeguard: The public no longer has to rely on the voluntary cooperation of officials to access legally mandated records.
Ultimately, the lawsuit forced open a door that should never have been closed. What happens on the other side—how the board governs as 2026 approaches—will reveal whether transparency becomes a habit or remains a hard-won exception.
