Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp Refuses to Recuse From Overseeing His Own Governor Election

Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp refuses to recuse himself from overseeing the 2018 gubernatorial election despite being the Republican candidate, creating an extraordinary conflict of interest. While running against Democrat Stacey Abrams, Kemp maintains control over voter registration, ballot counting, voting machine allocation, and election certification—using his position to implement policies that suppress likely Democratic voters in his own race.

The Conflict of Interest

Kemp serves simultaneously as Georgia’s chief election official and Republican gubernatorial candidate, wielding authority over the election machinery while being a candidate in the same election. This dual role gives him power to shape the electorate through voter purges, determine which registrations are approved, decide how many voting machines are allocated to different precincts, and ultimately certify the results of an election he’s competing in.

Democratic candidate Stacey Abrams and voting rights advocates call for Kemp to resign as Secretary of State or at minimum recuse himself from election-related decisions. Kemp refuses both demands, arguing he is simply performing his official duties without bias. His insistence on maintaining control while running for office represents a brazen assertion that partisan self-interest is compatible with neutral election administration.

The conflict is not merely theoretical. As Secretary of State while running for governor, Kemp makes numerous consequential decisions that directly affect his own electoral prospects, including voter purges, exact match enforcement, and precinct resource allocation.

October 2018 Exact Match Controversy

In the final weeks before the election, Kemp’s office holds 53,000 voter registration applications under Georgia’s “exact match” system—minor discrepancies between registration forms and state databases trigger holds preventing people from voting without additional verification. Investigation shows that 70% of the held registrations belong to African Americans, despite Black residents comprising only 32% of Georgia’s population.

The timing is particularly suspect: these holds occur in October 2018, just weeks before Election Day, when Kemp’s race against Abrams—who would be Georgia’s first Black female governor and has focused on voter registration—is highly competitive. The racial disparity in exact match holds suggests systematic suppression of likely Abrams voters by her opponent who controls the registration system.

Voting rights organizations sue, forcing some relief, but many affected voters face obstacles and confusion in the critical final weeks before the election. Some never successfully register in time to vote.

Broader Suppression Tactics During Candidacy

Beyond exact match, Kemp’s office implements multiple policies during his candidacy that suppress turnout:

Polling Place Closures: Under Kemp’s tenure, Georgia closes over 200 polling places, disproportionately in minority and Democratic-leaning communities, creating longer lines and travel burdens.

Voting Machine Allocation: Kemp’s office controls how voting machines are distributed to precincts. Reports document severe machine shortages in precincts serving minority communities, creating hours-long waits, while predominantly white precincts have sufficient machines.

Absentee Ballot Rejections: Georgia rejects absentee ballots at higher rates in minority counties, with Kemp’s office providing limited guidance on avoiding rejection.

Voter Purges: The massive 2017 purge of 560,000 voters occurs after Kemp announces his gubernatorial candidacy, raising questions about whether the purge was timed to benefit his campaign.

Election Results and Aftermath

Kemp defeats Abrams by approximately 55,000 votes out of nearly 4 million cast—a margin of 1.4%. The narrow margin is smaller than the number of voters purged in 2017 alone (107,000 for “use it or lose it”), raising questions about whether suppressed and purged eligible voters could have changed the outcome.

Abrams refuses to deliver a traditional concession speech, instead acknowledging Kemp’s victory while maintaining that the election was not conducted fairly due to systematic voter suppression. Her refusal to concede becomes controversial but highlights the legitimacy questions raised by Kemp overseeing his own election.

Kemp certifies his own victory as Secretary of State before resigning to become governor—literally signing off on an election in which he was a candidate. This self-certification encapsulates the absurdity and corruption of the conflict of interest.

Legal and Ethical Framework

While secretaries of state running for other offices is not unprecedented, Kemp’s refusal to recuse from election oversight while being a candidate in the same election is extraordinary. Other states with similar situations typically see officials recuse themselves or implement oversight mechanisms to avoid conflicts.

Georgia law does not explicitly require recusal, revealing a gap in election integrity protections. The assumption that election officials will voluntarily avoid conflicts of interest proves inadequate when officials prioritize partisan and personal interests over democratic norms.

The conflict violates fundamental principles of fair administration: no one should be both player and referee in the same game. Kemp’s role as both candidate and election administrator creates inherent incentives to manipulate the process for personal benefit.

Significance

Kemp’s refusal to recuse demonstrates how partisan control of election administration enables self-dealing on a massive scale. His ability to suppress likely opposition voters while running for office—through purges, exact match enforcement, and resource allocation—shows how election official positions can be weaponized for partisan advantage.

The incident exposes weaknesses in American election integrity systems. Many states grant secretaries of state broad authority over elections without adequate safeguards against conflicts of interest when those officials are candidates. The reliance on norms and voluntary recusal fails when officials are willing to prioritize winning over legitimacy.

Kemp’s successful election despite obvious conflicts creates a roadmap for future partisan manipulation. If election officials can suppress likely opposition voters, refuse recusal, and win anyway without serious legal or political consequences, it incentivizes similar behavior by other partisan election administrators.

The Georgia 2018 race becomes a symbol of modern voter suppression and election manipulation. Unlike historical disenfranchisement through violence or explicit racial exclusion, modern suppression works through bureaucratic mechanisms controlled by officials with conflicts of interest, making it harder to remedy through courts while maintaining plausible deniability.

The contrast with Abrams’s response is telling: while Kemp uses his power to shrink the electorate, Abrams focuses on expanding it through registration drives. Kemp’s willingness to use official power to suppress his opponent’s supporters represents a fundamental corruption of democratic competition, where winning matters more than legitimate representation.