In a notable legal decision, a Georgia judge recently addressed concerns that some allies of former President Donald Trump might attempt to disrupt the 2024 presidential election by refusing to certify the official results. The judge, Robert McBurney of Fulton County Superior Court, not only ruled against these efforts but made an intriguing reference to a famous line from J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings.
At the heart of the lawsuit was Julie Adams, a Republican member of the Fulton County Board of Registrations and Elections. Adams, appointed in February, sought legal relief on two main points. First, she argued that her duties related to election certification were discretionary rather than mandatory. Second, she sought unrestricted access to specific election materials under the board’s control. The judge ruled partially in her favor by granting access to the materials, but denied her request for broader discretionary authority over election certification.
McBurney’s ruling emphasized the mandatory nature of election certification under Georgia law. He clarified that election officials must certify the results without exception, underscoring that they have no discretion to withhold certification. In support of this, the judge cited the relevant Georgia statutes, which instruct that election results “shall” be certified no later than 5:00 P.M. on the Monday following the election. This phrasing, according to the judge, leaves no room for interpretation or refusal.
The most colorful aspect of the judge’s ruling came through his reference to The Lord of the Rings, specifically the iconic phrase, “You shall not pass,” popularized by the wizard Gandalf in Peter Jackson’s 2001 film adaptation. Gandalf delivers the line while confronting the Balrog, a monstrous creature, in the Mines of Moria, barring the creature’s advance to protect his companions. Though the original book uses the phrase “You cannot pass,” the cinematic version has become part of popular culture, representing an unyielding stand.
McBurney used this line to illustrate the distinction between the everyday meaning of the word “shall” and its specific legal usage. In legal contexts, “shall” can sometimes imply discretion or flexibility, depending on how it is interpreted by courts. However, McBurney argued that in the case of election certification, the word aligns with its common use as a strict command—indicating that election officials have no choice but to follow the law’s mandate.
The judge devoted considerable attention to the meaning of “shall” in his order, even providing a detailed footnote to underscore his point. The footnote delved into how the word can shift between different contexts, but McBurney’s ultimate conclusion was that, under Georgia election law, the term is unambiguous. Certification of election results is not subject to personal interpretation or judgment by officials; it is an obligatory act with a clear deadline.
In addition to the literary reference, McBurney also acknowledged historical uses of the phrase “You shall not pass.” He noted that during World War I, the French military employed a similar phrase, “Ils ne passeront pas” (They shall not pass), as a slogan to resist enemy forces. Decades later, during the Spanish Civil War, the phrase was revived by anti-fascist fighters as a rallying cry against advancing fascist forces. These historical connections, like Gandalf’s declaration, emphasize a determined stand against any effort to undermine established authority or principles.
Turning to the practical implications of the ruling, McBurney recognized the importance of clarifying the responsibilities of election officials, not only for Adams but also for others in similar roles across the state. He acknowledged that the lawsuit raised important questions about the scope of election officials’ authority. However, he firmly rejected the notion that these officials could refuse to certify election results based on their own investigations or suspicions of fraud.
McBurney explained that allowing election officials to act as investigators, judges, and juries would undermine the electoral process and silence the voices of Georgia’s voters. The state’s Constitution and election laws, he stressed, are designed to prevent this type of unilateral interference. Officials are required to follow the procedures laid out in the law, ensuring that elections are conducted and certified in a manner that reflects the will of the people.
The ruling sends a clear message that election certification is a procedural requirement, not a matter of personal discretion. By ruling against Adams’ attempt to withhold certification, McBurney underscored that the integrity of the electoral process must be preserved through adherence to established legal procedures. He acknowledged that election officials have significant discretion in many aspects of their duties, such as how they manage vote tabulation, but stressed that certification is not one of those areas where discretion is allowed.
McBurney’s decision represents a significant development in the ongoing debates surrounding election administration, especially in the context of concerns about efforts to disrupt or undermine the 2024 election. His use of Gandalf’s famous line serves as both a memorable cultural reference and a powerful metaphor for the steadfast application of the law. By invoking the wizard’s unyielding stand against the Balrog, the judge reinforced the idea that certain principles—in this case, the rule of law—must not be compromised.
In the broader context of election integrity, the ruling highlights the importance of maintaining clear and enforceable rules for officials responsible for certifying election results. The decision emphasizes that these officials have a duty to act in accordance with the law, not based on personal opinions or political pressures. This legal precedent could have far-reaching implications, serving as a reminder to other election officials across the country that their role is to implement the law impartially.
The ruling also touches on the tension between ensuring election transparency and preventing officials from overstepping their authority. While the judge granted Adams access to the requested election materials, he made it clear that access to information does not translate into the authority to withhold certification. The balance between transparency and adherence to legal procedures is essential for maintaining public trust in the electoral process.
Ultimately, McBurney’s decision reflects a broader effort to safeguard the democratic process from attempts to manipulate or delay the certification of election results. By firmly establishing that certification is a mandatory duty, the ruling provides clarity for election officials and reinforces the principle that the outcome of elections must be determined by the voters, not by individual officials.
This case serves as a reminder that the strength of democratic institutions depends on the faithful execution of the law by those entrusted with public responsibilities. The use of Gandalf’s famous words offers a fitting reminder that some lines—such as the legal obligations of election officials—must not be crossed. In the face of efforts to sow doubt or disrupt the electoral process, McBurney’s ruling stands as a declaration that the rule of law will prevail: election results, like the companions in the Mines of Moria, shall pass.
