Atlanta, GA — On Monday, the Superior Court of Fulton County filed notice of a hearing for a challenge to the candidacy of Brad Raffensperger for Governor on the Republican primary ballot, due to the Republican party voting to reject his candidacy last year at the Georgia GOP Convention. If successful, this challenge could disqualify Raffensperger from the Republican primary ballot.
The hearing will take place via Zoom on Friday April 24, 2026 at 1:30pm.
Members of the public are encouraged to observe the hearing via Zoom and show their support for Brandyn James and Harvey Wysong, the Republican Party delegates who filed the challenge.
“This is not a partisan issue; it is an issue of election integrity,” said Jake Medoff, attorney for Wysong and James. “The Georgia Republican Party has the right to decide who will represent it as a candidate, and that process should not be overridden by the whims of party executives.”
The official notice of scheduled hearing for Monday.
“This legal action is about protecting the interests of all Georgia voters. When my fellow Georgians and I go to the polls, we deserve to know whether that ‘R’ or ‘D’ next to our chosen candidate’s name means something or not,” continued Medoff. “If Raffensperger is allowed to run as a Republican against the wishes of the majority of the party, the party designation is meaningless.”
Attorney Jeff Medoff
The scheduling of this hearing is a win for Wysong and James and shows that their claim has legal merit and can’t be lightly dismissed. It also reveals that the court recognizes the urgency of the challenge, with early voting on the horizon.
Brad Raffensperger had a conflict of interest and abused his power as Secretary of State in order to try and quash a challenge to his own qualification, but Honorable Judge Belinda E. Edwards is not allowing him to unilaterally dismiss this challenge as “frivolous.”
“Raffensperger’s Office was obligated to investigate the challenge to his qualifications (O.C.G.A. 21-2-5),” said Medoff. “Instead, they buried it and tried to run out the clock. The Petition for Writ of Mandamus is simply asking the Court to Order Raffensperger to perform duties that he is already legally obligated to perform.”
“Simply put, nothing allows the Secretary to decide that the claim is frivolous. He had a duty to refer the challenge to an administrative law judge for a hearing and he failed to perform it; it’s that simple.”
Harvey Wysong & Brandyn James
Harvey Wysong and Brandyn James originally filed the challenge back on March 20th and asserted that the qualification of Brad Raffensperger as a Republican candidate was illegal. Raffensperger rejected the challenge and now they are seeking relief before early voting begins on April 27th with Raffensperger’s name erroneously listed as a Republican candidate for Governor.
Over the last 5 years, the Republican Party of Georgia passed numerous resolutions, and made numerous public statements affirming their commitment to election integrity and rebuking the Secretary for his actions in opposition to common sense election integrity reforms, and what many believe to be dereliction of duty to ensure free and fair elections. Tensions only escalated between 2020 and 2026. The decision to ban Raffensperger’s candidacy was the final, ultimate solution for the party delegates who had witnessed the Secretary repeatedly dismiss their concerns and ignore the party’s pleas for secure elections.
James and Wysong cite Raffensperger’s decisions to trust leftist non-profits funded by George Soros and Mark Zuckerberg to assist with the administration of Georgia’s elections. They also cite his Amicus brief filed against election integrity advocates who merely wanted to inspect the 2020 Fulton county ballots that appeared to be counterfeit, and which were seized by the FBI in January of this year.
GRA members are eager to see the outcome of this legal battle and are grateful for James and Wysong’s initiative to ensure the integrity of Georgia’s elections process and protect the reputation of the Republican Party.
Brandyn James and Harvey Wysong launched a fundraiser on Give Send Go and have already raised several thousand dollars of the $45,000 they expect they will need. Attorneys, hearings, and court filings are not cheap.
Can you pitch in to help them pay their attorneys and pursue justice and an authentic Republican ballot for Georgians?
Last week the Georgia State Elections Board met in a packed-out Dawsonville court house to address several issues and complaints regarding the elections systems. One of the subjects they took up was S.B. 189, the legislation passed by the Georgia legislature back in 2024 that said, among other things, that the QR codes on the ballots would have to be discontinued by this year on July 1st.
Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger is claiming the statute was an “unfunded mandate,” impossible for his office to implement across the state without more funding that would necessitate a special legislative session. A representative for his office was schedule to testify before the state Board of Elections, but bowed out the night before.
Board members such as Dr. Jan Johnston and Salleigh Grubbs, on the other hand, both agreed that the law should be implemented by the deadline, but Salleigh insisted that they need not call a special session because a lot of the legislators are out currently campaigning for election.
Dr. Johnston said that every county has a ballot-on-demand printer that was provided from Dominion when they setup their machines. Those printers can print provisional and emergency ballots that do not have the QR codes, and they could be used to enable the counties to meet the legal deadline looming. The counties already have 10% of these emergency paper ballots on hand for every election. “We should not stand idle,” said Johnston. She said that if the county election directors have not “already started planning for the use of paper ballots, then they are behind the eight ball!”
Jim Coles is a local county Board of Elections member in Catoosa County. He spoke to the elections officials in his county, and received confirmation that his county was indeed provided with a “back-up” machine, in case the Dominion computer system broke down, to print regular ballots without a QR code for traditional counting. “Every county was issued at least one Dominion ballot-on-demand printer as a back up,” said Jim. That being the case, it would seem then that every county should already have the ability to meet the statutory deadline. They just need to convert Plan B into Plan A.
Ringgold, GA – Today the Catoosa County Board of Elections voted to illegally qualify County Commission RINO incumbent Chuck Harris — in spite of his failure to sign the loyalty oath to the Republican Party. A formal elector challenge was filed by Britt Fant, a Catoosa GOP member.
State law allows political parties to require a loyalty oath from all candidates wishing to qualify with that party, and the Republican Party of Catoosa County requires that oath. In previous Catoosa cases argued in state court regarding blocking candidates from qualifying, judges have repeatedly affirmed that the political parties have the power to condition qualifying upon whether the candidate has signed and submitted the oath. Yet the Catoosa Board of Elections voted 3-2 to allow Chuck Harris to appear on the Republican Primary ballot without signing the oath.
Because Harris did not sign the oath as required by law, the Catoosa GOP did not include him on their certified list of candidates that the Catoosa Board of Elections publicly posted after the qualifying period ended. State law says that no candidate shall be removed or added after qualifying ends. However, somehow mysteriously Chuck Harris’ name appeared on the Georgia Secretary of State’s web site as a candidate that had duly qualified.
Joanna Hildreth, Ruth Fant, Alex Johnson, & Britt Fant at the hearing
“The issue here is – did Chuck Harris do the things under the law and under the party rules which are required? And he didn’t,” said Alex Johnson, attorney for Britt Frant.
(3) when he violated section 17 of the Catoosa County Charter by profiting off the county through the sale of medical supplies to the county which is prohibited for elected officials.
However, today’s legal challenge was not based upon the resolution passed at the Catoosa GOP convention. Rather this challenge was based upon the candidate’s failure to sign the loyalty oath.
The loyalty oath reads: “I do hereby, swear, or affirm my allegiance to the Republican party.”
Chuck Harris and his attorney Tom Weldon both pretended like Catoosa GOP had mistreated him by not informing him about the loyalty oath missing from his paperwork.
But the law doesn’t require the party to hand him any documents. Furthermore, why should the Republican Party encourage a candidate to sign a loyalty oath to the party when they truly believe the candidate would be guilty of false swearing if he did sign it?
Even those who disagree with Catoosa GOP and believe the delegates are mistaken about Harris’s loyalty to the party would likely acknowledge that the Catoosa GOP volunteers sincerely believe Harris is a Democrat in disguise.
During the hearing, Catoosa Board of Elections member Jim Coles asked excellent questions that forced Harris to acknowledge that he had run for office twice before. He was present at the hearings in 2024 where the legal requirements surrounding candidate qualification were discussed at great length, yet he claims that he did not remember signing the loyalty oath to the Republican Party when he previously ran and did not remember that step being one of the requirements for being qualified on the Republican ballot.
Alex Johnson pointed out in his closing statement that candidate Chuck Harris even included a copy of the loyalty oath required by the party rules in a document he filed on Thursday with the local court the week of qualifying!
“Chuck Harris is an elected official who makes laws — who should know the law,” said Johnson. “He had a copy of it. He filed it in court on Thursday [the week of qualifying]. He didn’t sign it. He didn’t submit it, and his attorney was there and should have known it.“
Indeed, Harris’ attorney, Weldon is a former State Representative who would have also had experience signing the loyalty oath each time he had previously run for office. Weldon was present with Harris at the Catoosa Board of Elections office when Harris’ paperwork was transferred from the Catoosa GOP to the Catoosa Board of Elections, and he had the opportunity to help Harris inspect the paperwork and make sure that the loyalty oath was included. But he did not.
Truth is often stranger than fiction, but it appears highly suspicious that both Harris and his attorney would overlook this essential step in qualification given the fact that Harris still has colleagues engaged in ongoing litigation with Catoosa GOP where their fundamental argument is that they, in 2024, met all the legal requirements to qualify as a Republican candidate: they “filed the paperwork, paid the fee, and signed the oath.” Harris has attended many of those hearings and publicly commented on them.
Weldon argued that Harris was not being treated fairly by the Catoosa GOP since they did not remind him to turn in his loyalty oath. Weldon pointed to other candidates that the Catoosa GOP had sent reminders in order to assure they submitted all the required documents in time. But the Catoosa GOP had already communicated publicly that they did not want to qualify Harris and so he had no reasonable expectation that they would go above and beyond to remind him of his obligation to turn in a loyalty oath — particularly since they had already stated that they did not believe any such loyalty oath would be anything other than disingenuous.
“The other side is mocking civil rights law every time they say ‘you need to be treated equally. You can’t have disparate treatment.’ That is talking about race and sex discrimination,” said Alex Johnson. “It’s not talking about political parties. Political parties have a right to associate with people who support their platform. That’s the point of a political party is to get your platform enacted. The Republican Party doesn’t want Chuck Harris because Chuck Harris isn’t supporting the platform! Rightly or wrongly, that is what came out of their convention.”
Alex continued: “I think Republicans and Democrats both agree that we should follow the rule of law. The rule of law is what has been presented today by us. … There is no requirement in the law that the Republican Party provide anything to candidates. That is not in the law.”
“We have to have parties that treat people the same,” said Tom Weldon, attorney for Chuck Harris.
Weldon argued that Catoosa GOP was “an acting governmental agency” while conducting candidate qualifying, because the party receives a portion of the qualification fee paid by the candidates, and therefore did not have a legal right to discriminate. This theory is absurd and not supported by law or precedent. A political party does not temporarily become a governmental agency just because they are allowed by law to conduct candidate qualifying. Legal precedent shows clearly that political parties have the right to not associate with candidates with whom they do not wish to associate. This was affirmed just last year by the 11th Circuit Court ruling which stated: “[A] political party’s right to freedom of association encompasses the right to exclude candidate[s] in the party primary in order to protect itself from those with adverse political principles. (Duke v. Cleland).”
If Weldon’s argument is true, and political parties cannot discriminate in which candidates they qualify, then Socialist Bernie Sanders could run on the Republican primary while spouting socialism. This would mean a Libertarian could also run on the Democrat ballot and undermine their platform and destroy their credibility on issues that are important to Democrat voters. This would result in chaos.
Weldon’s argument displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of political parties. If a party has no ideological boundaries by which they discriminate, they cease to be a political party. If everyone meets the definition of Republican, then the term has no meaning. Your “big tent” ceases to be a tent at all.
“It would be atrocious for the government to say that the Democrat Party has to support Donald Trump. It would be atrocious for the government to say that the Democrat Party has to qualify some Trump supporter to run in this county as a Democrat. That wouldn’t be right. That wouldn’t be fair.”
On the vote as to whether to qualify Chuck Harris as a Republican without requiring him to sign a loyalty oath by the deadline, Jim Coles and Jennifer Motter were the only two members of the Catoosa Board of Elections who voted “no.” Harris was allowed on the primary ballot by a vote of 3 to 2. Coles and Motter are the Republican-appointed members of the county Board of Elections.
It is disappointing that the Board of Elections would dismiss the clear text of the state code and override the will of a majority of about 200 delegates at the Catoosa Convention. They wanted to stop publicly associating with Chuck Harris. Harris indicated he was willing to sign the loyalty oath today, but the Catoosa Elections Board didn’t even make Chuck Harris’ qualification conditional upon his signing the loyalty oath today.
Republicans across America are becoming increasingly concerned about undercover Democrats running under the Republican label. We saw it in Ohio, and North Carolina just recently, where self-identified Democrat progressives attempted to run on the Republican primary. Nevertheless, the Catoosa BOE was willing to force a candidate on the Republican ballot while the party delegates go down kicking and screaming that they don’t trust he is a Republican.
“We are disappointed to see the Board of Elections once again violate our freedom of association rights guaranteed by the First Amendment,” said Joanna Hildreth, the Catoosa GOP Chairwoman. “This is America. Just as the government can’t force a Baptist church to accept a Muslim as a pastor, the government should not force Catoosa GOP to associate with someone who does not share our values and didn’t even sign an oath of allegiance.”
If Chuck Harris is loyal to the Republican Party, why would he ignore the party platform and raise taxes?
If Chuck Harris is loyal to the party, why would he ignore the pleas of party activists to enjoy the basic freedom to keep chickens on their own property?
If Harris is loyal to the Republican party why would he not honor the will of 100+ Catoosa GOP delegates who didn’t want his name on their ballot? Why didn’t he try to please them while he was in office before they felt the need to take such an extreme measure as to demand he “cease and desist” from calling himself a Republican?
It took a lot of nerve for the Catoosa Board of Elections to do this and was a huge insult to the Republican Party of Catoosa County. This sent a message to the party that if the BOE is convinced that someone is a Republican, who cares what the 100+ Catoosa delegates who operate the party think?
But the Catoosa County Republican Party is not discouraged. Britt Fant intends to challenge today’s decision in an appeal to Superior Court.
Click to watch attorney Alex Johnson’s closing arguments at the Catoosa Board of Elections hearing.
Dawsonville, GA – On Wednesday, the State Board of Elections dismissed a complaint against North Metro Republican Assembly Chapter President Richard Jordan after Ann Dover failed to present any real evidence of election interference. Ann Dover, Director of Cherokee County Elections, filed a complaint alleging that on August 26, 2025 Richard Jordan “displayed unacceptable behavior while inside Cherokee County elections and voter registration office” when he voted.
“I now seek full and complete vindication from criminal accusations for merely asking two legitimate questions of a trained poll worker,” said Richard Jordan. “A procedural question was asked to verify my confidence that the QR code and the specified printed candidate name read by the tabulator accurately reflected my candidate of choice.”
The complaint was referred to the State Election Board after the Secretary of State office initiated an investigation. This is the second time Richard Jordan has found himself in trouble for merely asking questions at the polls. There was a previous polling incident in 2022 where an almost identical complaint was filed by Dover against Jordan seeking criminal sanctions and it was dismissed as frivolous.
In addition to leading a GRA Chapter, Richard Jordan has served as a poll watcher for 15 years and currently serves as the precinct chairman of the Mountain Road precinct in Cherokee county. He is a well known election integrity advocate in his community.
“Even if it could be construed that I was engaged in some kind of interference with a poll worker, my intention was simply to get information,” said Jordan. “Does the tabulator read the QR code or the name that is written there? I don’t know. I genuinely don’t know.”
Attorney David Oles
GRA Member and attorney David Oles represented Richard and argued from the law that voters have a right to informed participation in the election process. He cited the Election Board’s own rule which states: “A voter may request information from poll officers concerning how to use the electronic ballot marker or any other voting system component, at any time during the voting process. (SEB Rule 183-1-12-.11 subsection 9)”
“Peaceful, good faith questions from electors are not only lawful, they are affirmatively protected so that every voter can cast their vote with confidence,” said Oles.
Oles cited other passages in the law that confer not only permission but also responsibility to poll workers to answer questions about the voting machine or the process.
“These statutes exist to safeguard the orderly administration of elections, and to protect poll workers from actual misconduct that hinders voting. Not to punish or chill, peaceful, lawful, and statutorily authorized inquiries by voters seeking to understand the election equipment.”
Ann Dover & attorney
Attorney for Cherokee BOE and Ann Dover argued that there was a pattern of aggressive behavior from other incidents, but in none of those incidents was there any election interference substantiated.
The hearing bore a strong resemblance a to middle school squabble in the principle’s office with allegations such as “he violated my personal space,” and subjective claims that “he made me feel intimidated.”
The complaint accuses Richard of pushing his ballot in a poll workers’s face. Richard denied it and said he held his ballot in his left hand and merely pointed at it and there was no way she could see the front of his ballot.
“I would not do that. That’s not who I am,” said Richard.
They claimed there was a pattern of aggressive behavior from other incidents, yet State Board of Elections member Janelle King pointed out that Richard had been allowed to serve as a poll watcher since the previous incident, a fact which raised questions about the sincerity of the concern. Richard said he was calm and the poll worker overreacted to the content of his question regarding the QR code and began raising her voice, at which time he stepped away.
It was a lot of contradictory testimony without any other evidence, since recording is forbidden in polling locations. The attorney for the Cherokee Board of Elections attempted to make the case that this was election interference because the poll worker got flustered, and therefore was not able to do her work. This argument was not persuasive to the board members.
“What I am assessing is that there is heightened emotions on both sides,” said Board Member Janelle King. “You are tired of him, you are tired of dealing with him. And then Mr. Jordan is frustrated with things that are outside of your control.”
Both Dr. Janice Johnston and Salleigh Grubbs had to recuse themselves from the vote because of their relationship with Richard Jordan on the GA GOP Executive Committee, they said, but they participated in the discussion.
“He has the right to ask the same question every election, and be patiently told that no one knows the answer to that question,” said Dr. Jan Johnston.
Attorney David Oles stated he could not find any case in legal history in which a voter has been held criminally liable for merely asking a question about a voting system.
He pointed out that the law Richard was accused of violating had to be “willful” and had to have actually “prevented a poll officer from fulfilling their duty.” Of all the accusations made, on Wednesday, none of them proved these things.
Instead of making a criminal referral to the Attorney General, as the Cherokee Elections Director wanted, Janelle King made a compromise motion to merely issue Richard Jordan a letter of reprimand.
“The late Charlie Kirk said ‘whatever you believe about the US Constitution, you need to speak up. You need to ask questions or we will lose our constitutional freedoms!’” said Jordan.
Dawsonville, GA — Today the GRA’s Election Integrity Action Group Chairman Jason Frazier successfully brought to light several examples of flaws in the Fulton County election system. At the Georgia State Board of Elections Meeting held today in Dawsonville at the courthouse, Jason presented a complaint listing numerous examples.
Among other things in his complaint he pointed out 20 people who were registered twice in the county and voted twice. An attorney for Fulton County appeared to argue against Frazier’s findings. However, the state Board of Elections ultimately agreed that at least ten people were double registered and had voted twice in the same election. There are clearly flaws in the system that need to be repaired.
“We were all here when one of the individuals said ‘Yes, I had a mail-in ballot. My wife turned it in, and I voted in person.’ That’s a double vote. … These are called lies!” said Frazier.
Jason has been nominated to serve on the Fulton County Board of Elections by GRA member and Fulton County Republican Party Chairwoman Stephanie Endres, but his nomination has been repeatedly held up by the Fulton County Commission because they don’t like how much much evidence of election fraud Frazier has brought to light.
“We need to get to a system with full legal name, full date of birth is verified, and real addresses,” said Frazier. “Not P.O. Boxes. … Those could be very very simple checks. It’s going to greatly reduce the duplicates.”
“If we want ‘one voter, one vote,’ we need ‘one voter, one registration’!”
Atlanta, GA – Today Brandyn James and Harvey Wysongfiled a “Writ of Mandamus“ petitioning Fulton County Superior Court to compel Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to hold a hearing for their electoral challenge to the qualification of Brad Raffensperger as a gubernatorial candidate in the Republican primary. This case is unique in that Raffensperger is both the candidate in question and the elected official responsible to facilitate electoral challenges whenever a voter asserts a candidate did not meet the legal requirements to qualify for a specific office.
Harvey Wysong & Brandyn James
The motion claims that Brad Raffensperger violated state law ( O.C.G.A. §21-2-5) when his office “refused to perform its duties in referring a challenge to the qualifications of a candidate for governor to an administrative law judge.”
The Secretary of State (SoS) office replied by letter on March 30th stating that there was no legal challenge and no action would be taken. State law does not give the SoS the authority to summarily dismiss a candidate challenge without a hearing.
The challenge asserts that the qualification of Brad Raffensperger by the Republican Party was illegal and an abuse of authority since the party administrators who conducted the qualification had been strictly forbidden by the highest authority in the GAGOP – the state convention – to qualify Brad Raffensperger as a Republican candidate due to his anti-Republican record.
“Raffensperger’s record is inexcusable!” said Brandyn James.
“If someone repeatedly plays Benedict Arnold and betrays his own party and the party’s commitment to fair, honest elections, the party shouldn’t be expected to accept his candidacy for the next election—and we didn’t,” said Wysong and James in an online fundraiser campaign for their legal battle.
They further expose that “Brad Raffensperger was responsible for allowing $45 Million from a Zuckerberg funded Democrat non-profit (called “Zuckerbucks”) to influence Georgia elections.”
“Fool me once, shame on you,” said Brandyn James. “Fool me twice, shame on me… We had to do something!”
Ted Metz speaking at the 2026 State GRA Endorsement Convention
Interestingly, when Garret Ashleyfiled a similar candidate challenge last month against Ted Metz, a candidate for Secretary of State, claiming he was affiliated with the Libertarian Party, not the Republican Party, Ashley received a hearing without question. Metz defended himself and the challenge was not sustained, and Metz officially qualified as a Republican candidate. However, Ashley’s case received a hearing even though there was not nearly as strong a case for his challenge as there is here against Raffensperger’s candidacy. There was no documented majority vote by hundreds of Republican Party delegates banning Metz from qualifying as a Republican for any office, as there was with Raffensperger. Why the double standard? It seems obvious.
Some have claimed the motion passed by the GA GOP Convention banning Raffensperger was illegal and therefore the party had no responsibility to enforce it. However, constitutional rights, like the right to Freedom of Association, supercede state law.
“If their view of the law is correct and the directive illegal,” said GRA 1st Vice President Nick Cooper, “then that resolution kicking Geoff Duncan out of the Republican Party was completely meaningless — meaning that Geoff has some kind of ‘right’ to run as a Republican! If she wanted, Stacey Abrams could show up and qualify to run as a Republican, and there would be no legal means for the party itself to stop her!”
This is, of course, absurd. There is no “right” to run as a Republican anymore than there is a “right” to be a pastor of a specific church when the church doesn’t want you and voted to ban you. The government cannot force a political party to accept candidates who do not represent their ideology.
Fox News reported this week that the Ohio Supreme Court blocked a RINO candidate who was “caught publicly admitting that his candidacy was part of a calculated strategy to run Democrats as Republicans in “deep red districts” to “get a foot in the door.””
In North Carolina, a candidate named Kate Barr ran as a Republican but stated: “I’m not a real Republican… I’m running as a progressive in a Republican primary.” This kind of contradiction naturally infuriates real Republicans, who believe in the principles of the party and the timeless truths that shaped the party platform.
Why do some Georgia Republicans continue to ignore this problem and oppose accountability in the party? Political parties in other countries – countries with far less freedom – like India and the UK are not at all ashamed to expect ideological adherence from candidates representing their party, and remove those who deviate from the stated ideology of the party. This is a fundamental and we contend a necessary aspect of what it means to be a political party.
“This discussion is over the idea of whether someone has a right to run as a Republican — not whether they want to run at all,” said Cooper. “It would be perfectly fine for Brad Raffensperger to run as an Independent.”
Brandyn James and Harvey Wysong have courageously stepped up to take on this legal battle, but they cannot do it by themselves. They need their fellow Georgia patriots to support them. Can you pitch in to help cover their court costs and attorney fees? If you would like to support this effort you can donate to their GiveSendGo here:
The following article is primarily a guest post from GRA member from Chatham County, Jerilyn Gibbs:
1. Rick Jackson’s true target : TRUMP and the MAGA Movement
Defeating Trump-endorsed & GRA-endorsed Burt Jones is Jackson’s path to discrediting the power of Trump’s endorsements. If successful, Democrats would frame the Georgia governor’s race as a referendum on Trump — and Jackson knows it.
2. Jackson is not and never has been a MAGA Republican. Proof:
He donated to Liz Chaney’s PAC weeks after she had joined Democrats in impeaching Trump.
He built his fortune through nearly $1 billion in lucrative state contracts while donating heavily to Brian Kemp, Brad Raffensperger, and Geoff Duncan (now a Democrat).
Jackson is suspected of ties to the out of state dark money behind the smear campaign against Jones (via “Georgian for Integrity,” now facing formal ethics charges). Even if not directly tied, he has amplified the same attacks.
This is why the bipartisan Georgia Senate just voted 50-1 to pass a bill empowering the Georgia Ethics Commission with new subpoenas power against out-of-state individuals and organizations suspected of violating Georgia’s campaign finance and disclosure laws.
3. The smears distort Jones’ long-held support for rural healthcare.
Jones advocated reforming outdated Certificate of Need rules that have long badly needed rural hospitals statewide – not a special favor for Butts County. The attacks focus on a proposed hospital on land partially owned by Jones’ father. Jones response:
His support reflects a broad policy goal for better rural medical access, not a carve-out; early on, no specific site was designated.
Jones owns no part of the land or project and therefore has no direct personal benefit (no proven quid pro quo).
4. The bottom line: This is a smear campaign by someone who cannot compete on the issues. Jackson kicked off his campaign with lies and hypocrisy (including his own datacenter investment in Texas while attacking Jones over a nonexistent one on family land). How can voters trust him to advance the MAGA agenda?
