One of the main justifications for stopping the recount in *Bush v. Gore* was the December 12 “safe harbor” deadline. The Supreme Court ruled 5–4 that no constitutionally valid recount could be completed by that date. This raises some interesting questions about what exactly qualifies as a constitutionally valid count of votes.
Right now, Georgia is the only state with MAGA-aligned officials in statewide positions who could potentially interfere with state certification. But what about local MAGA election officials? If a local district refuses to certify its vote, does that mean the votes from that county are simply not counted in the statewide total, and the state can still certify the election? Could these local officials sue, arguing that because their results weren’t certified, the entire state election should be thrown out? This would seemingly contradict the *Bush v. Gore* precedent.
Another question is what happens to down-ballot races in these counties. Would these officials argue that only the presidential race shouldn’t be certified while allowing all other election results to stand? If their attempt to block certification of the presidential results fails, would they try to go back and certify down-ballot results? And would the courts allow them to do so?
In a best-case scenario, if these counties refuse to certify, all of their votes—including those in down-ballot races—could be excluded, leading to larger margins for Democrats in swing states and potentially causing some Republican candidates to lose in deep-red areas. In the worst-case scenario, the Supreme Court could rule that the failure of some counties to certify nullifies the entire state’s certification. The courts could even allow the state legislatures to decide how to allocate electoral votes while still certifying the local election results, creating a situation where local elections are certified but the presidential election is not.