c. Ryan Germany

Ryan Germany, former general counsel for the Georgia Secretary of State’s Office, also testified in Plaintiff’s case-in-chief. Tr. 483:15–18. The Court finds that Germany’s testimony is particularly credible in this case. Not only is Germany a non-party without any personal interest in this matter, he also served as general counsel for the Secretary of State for nine years. Tr. 483:15–18. Holding this position for nearly a decade affords his testimony significant weight because of his particular knowledge of Georgia’s election regulations and procedures. Tr. 483:19–484:11. Germany testified consistently at trial and provided thorough, balanced answers to the questions asked. The Court weighs his testimony accordingly.

Germany substantively testified that the federal regulations (namely, the NVRA) often make the State’s voter list maintenance difficult. Tr. 510:7–10. He emphasized the 90-day blackout period before an election for systematic removals and the lengthy process of removing unresponsive NCOA voters as particular regulations making the State’s maintenance programs difficult. Tr. 511:3–512:2. At the Secretary of State’s office, NCOA data is used as a basis for further inquiring into a voter’s residency through sending the voter a form inquiring about their residency. Tr. 485:9–486:8. If the voter does not respond to the form, then they are moved to inactive status.34 Tr. 486:15–487:1. If they respond, then the Secretary of State’s office updates their records accordingly. Tr. 486:1–14. Residency determinations, however, are “complicated” and “very much an individualized case-by-case analysis.” Tr. 488:21–25.

After the 2020 general election, the Secretary of State’s office received a list of people believed to have moved out of state and thereby ineligible to vote in Georgia. Tr. 487:10–25. This spreadsheet of 8,000 names (Tr. 508:24–509:1) was not individualized. Tr. 500:10–13. Germany expressly testified that he did not think the list came from TTV but could not say if it came from the other Defendants. Tr. 492:10–17, 503:1–9. This list included UOCAVA voters and some obvious military addresses. Tr. 487:22–488:14. Once removing these obviously eligible voters, the Secretary of State’s office sent out a form inquiring about residency. Tr. 489:1–11. Of the 8,000 voters initially on the list given, a little over a 1,000 responded. Tr. 489:1–11, 492:24–493:1; PX 8. Of these 1,000 responses, 26 reported being in the “process of relocating” and 13 reported having “relocated prior to July 2020.”35 PX 8. Any voters who had relocated were sent a “voter cancelation form” to update their Georgia voting registration. PX 8. Germany was unaware of any intimidation felt by this survey. Tr. 509:6–8.

Germany confirmed that, in the light of these regulations on the State, one of the few remaining ways to scrutinize voter rolls immediately prior to an election was an eligibility challenge under O.C.G.A. § 21-2-230. Tr. 513:5–8. In describing the Section 230 process for individual voters to challenge potentially ineligible voters, Germany highlighted the importance of the county Board of Elections in the Section 230 process. Specifically, Germany testified that the first step to be taken after receiving a Section 230 challenge was to determine if probable cause existed to inquire further into a challenge. Tr. 501:18–25. The Board of Elections solely makes this determination. Tr. 501:18–25, 505:5–22. While the Boards of Election certainly have to comply with relevant laws and regulations, ultimately how to proceed with the challenge remains in the discretion of the county. Tr. 505:18–19. If there is no probable cause finding, then the Section 230 analysis stops. Tr. 506:6–13.

Germany testified to a specific mass challenge of potentially ineligible voters before the 2020 Senate runoff election filed by True the Vote. Tr. 484:13–21. Germany recalled that TTV crafted its lists based on NCOA data. Tr. 484:20–21. Germany testified about attending a meeting held with the Secretary of State’s office and True the Vote between the 2020 general election and Senate runoff election. Tr. 495:11–14, 496:8–497:7. Germany indicated TTV (via Engelbrecht) informed the Secretary of State’s office about their plans to file Section 230 voter challenges. Tr. 496:20–23. Germany emphasized that Section 230 challenges are intended to be made on an individualized basis and that TTV needed to ensure there was sufficient evidence for each voter, “and not just basically a list of people without [any] kind of individualized evidence.”36 Tr. 497:1–7. Germany also testified to raising concerns over TTV’s challenges, especially if they just handed over a “bunch of names,” which Germany perceived would not be sufficient for the counties to move forward. Tr. 498:19–24, 499:13–15 (“[I]t’s spelled out in Georgia law, that it needs to be an individualized approach for each voter.”). Part of Germany’s concern involved the hectic electoral environment before the Senate runoff election. Tr. 499:1–8 (“[T]his was a time when counties were still completing duties related to the 2020 general election, getting ready for a very high-profile election in January.”). Germany also indicated that merely using a list of NCOA voters would be insufficient for a Section 230 challenge to move forward. Tr. 502:15–17. He did not recall there being any pushback from TTV in the meeting about the Section 230 process. Tr. 500:14–20.

As the Court indicated, it finds Germany’s testimony to be particularly credible in this case given his impartiality and prior experience in the Georgia Secretary of State’s office. Thus, to the extent that Engelbrecht’s testimony about this meeting differed from Germany’s account, the Court credits Germany over Engelbrecht. The Court finds that Germany’s account will be given significant weight in its ultimate conclusions of law.