HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard Meeting Agenda Packet 12-14-2021MEETING AGENDA
Date: December 14, 2021 Time: 5:15 PM
Location: Bd of Elections Office, Long Leaf Room Type: Regular
Scheduled Attendees:
Oliver Carter III, Chair
Derrick R. Miller, Secretary
Lyana G. Hunter, Member
Bruce Kemp, Member
Rae Hunter-Havens, Elections Director
Chris Tisbert, Database & Systems Specialist
Joan Geiszler-Ludlum, Administrative Elections
Technician
Russ C. Bryan, Member
Visitor(s): Sheryl Kelly, Assistant County Manager
AGENDA ITEMS
1.Meeting Opening
a.Call to Order
b.Pledge of Allegiance
c.Approval of Agenda
d.Approval of Minutes (9/14/2021, 10/05/2021, 10/12/2021, 10/19/2021)
2.Procedural Matter – Parameters for Public Comment Period
3.Public Comment and Questions
•Public Comment (2-minute limit)
4.Director’s Report
5.New Business
a.Adoption of Regular Meeting Schedule
b.Polling Place Change for Precinct W28
6.General Discussion
•Other Elections-Related Matters
7.Adjournment
*Agenda packets are sent via email in advance of meetings.
Regular Meeting
New Hanover County Board of Elections
December 14, 2021
Subject:
Approval of Agenda
Summary:
N/A
Board Action Required:
Staff recommends approval
Item # 1c
Regular Meeting
New Hanover County Board of Elections
December 14, 2021
Subject:
Approval of Minutes
Applicable Statutes and/or Rules
N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 163-31(e) and 143-318.10(e)
Summary:
This includes minutes from the 9/14/2021, 10/05/2021, 10/12/2021, and 10/19/2021 meetings.
Board Action Required:
Staff recommends approval
Item # 1d Item # 1d
Board Minutes – 09/14/2021
REGULAR MEETING
New Hanover County Board of Elections
September 14, 2021
5:15 P.M.
ATTENDANCE
Members: Oliver Carter III, Chairman
Derrick R. Miller, Secretary
Russ C. Bryan, Member
Lyana G. Hunter, Member
Bruce Kemp, Member
Staff: Rae Hunter-Havens, Executive Director
Chris Tisbert, Elections Database and Systems Specialist
Joan Geiszler-Ludlum, Administrative Elections Technician
Visitors: Sheryl Kelly, Assistant County Manager
Public Attendees – In Person: Steph Fetzer; Richard Poole; Susanne Werner, NHC
Democratic Party; Loraine Buker, League of Women Voters –
Lower Cape Fear; Bob Gatewood; Julius Rothlein, NHC GOP;
Thom Miller; Will Knecht, NHC GOP; Dottie Playforth, NHC
GOP; Susan Kreamer; Tom Kreamer; Peggy Vineyard; Andre
Brown.
Public Attendees - Virtual: Leslie Cohen; J. T.; two unidentified telephone numbers.
OPENING
Chair Carter reminded everyone that New Hanover County is under an indoor mask
mandate. All attendees must wear masks while attending the Board of Elections
meetings. He requested all attendees to silence their cell phones. He announced that this
meeting is being recorded, both audio and video. Finally, he asked attendees not to
interrupt another speaker and reminded that in the Public Comment period, speakers are
limited to two minutes each.
Chair Carter called the meeting to order at 5:17 p.m. The New Hanover County Board of
Elections meeting was held in the Board of Elections office, Long Leaf Room, 1241A
Military Cutoff Road, Wilmington, NC. All members were present.
Board Minutes – 09/14/2021
AGENDA
Chair Carter asked for the following changes in the order of the agenda: after the Public
Comment period, move to item 5.b., Temporary Transfer of Voters for Precinct H08, and
5.c., 2021-2023 Appointment of Chief Judges and Judges as Old Business, then the
Director’s Report and the remaining items. Chair Carter moved adoption of the agenda
as amended, second by Member Kemp. Motion carried unanimously.
Chair Carter announced he will no longer call for abstentions when calling for the vote.
MINUTES
Chair Carter moved that the minutes of the 08/17/2021 Special Board meeting be
approved as submitted. Member Kemp requested a change on page three, last paragraph,
seventh line, adding “where possible” after party affiliation. Secretary Miller requested a
change on page four, paragraph six, second line to correct the spelling of the last name
from “Willis” to “Wills”, second by Member Kemp. Motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Chair Carter called upon the public in-person attendees for their comments or questions,
limited to two minutes each.
Suzanne Werner, representing NHC Democratic Party and chair Andre Brown, said she
has been working on the chief judge and judge appointments for many years. This year,
the Democratic Party recommended six judges and four were rejected because they were
non-residents of the precinct. She has brought forward an additional name of a voter who
is resident in the precinct to Chair Carter. She was not aware that non-residents of the
precinct are now eligible. According to the statute, residence in the precinct is the most
important qualification. She is aware that there are recommendations to transfer in and
replace a resident Unaffiliated official with a non-resident party-affiliated official. That
is an error. In some precincts, Republican and Unaffiliated officials are appointed and
no Democrats. Replacing a transfer Democrat with a transfer Republican is inappropriate
in those cases. Chair Carter took note that Ms. Werner was reading from the guidance
from the State Board of Elections and passed out copies of his edited excerpts from
NCGS §163-41 to the Board Members and the public in-person attendees.
Seeing no other public in-person attendees wishing to offer comment, Chair Carter called
on the virtual attendees for their comments. Leslie Cohen asked whether the August 17
meeting minutes are posted on the website? The August 17 minutes were approved
earlier in this meeting and will be posted to the website tomorrow.
In-person attendee Susan Kreamer reported she served as an observer on Election Day
2020. At the end of the day, she was told to leave by the chief judge as the precinct
officials were breaking down the equipment. She asked that the chief judges be trained to
let observers stay. Director Hunter-Havens acknowledged that there was some confusion
about allowing observers to remain and that has been noted for future training.
Board Minutes – 09/14/2021
Seeing and hearing no other public attendees wishing to comment, Chair Carter closed
the Public Comment period.
OLD BUSINESS
5.b. Temporary Transfer of Voters for Precinct H08
Chair Carter called on Director Hunter-Havens for her report. Currently there are no
registered voters who reside within the municipal boundaries in Precinct H08. The
deadline to register to vote in the municipal election is October 8, 2021. The State Board
of Elections (SBE) has recommended that the Board temporarily transfer voters in
Precinct H08 to Precinct H12 for the 2021 Municipal Election only. Precinct H12 is
adjacent to Precinct H08.
The statute governing a temporary transfer requires that, when the board assigns voters
from more than one precinct to the same precinct, the board shall maintain separate
registration and voting records to identify properly the precinct in which the voter resides.
(N.C. Gen. Stat. §163-128(a) (2020)) The polling place for Precinct H12 is Porters Neck
Elementary School. The voting enclosure is the multipurpose room, which has sufficient
interior space to maintain separate registration and voting in the event an eligible Precinct
H08 voter registers to vote.
Question was raised whether there is a similar situation in H12? Director Hunter-Havens
reported that H12 has about 300 to 400 voters in the municipal limits.
Member Kemp moved adoption of the Resolution to Temporarily Transfer Voters for
Precinct H08, second by Member Hunter.
Secretary Miller asked what happens with the chief judge and judges appointed for
Precinct H08. Director Hunter-Havens proposed the transfer to Precinct H12 which has
an experienced chief judge in place and can navigate the specialized process with the
transfer. Precinct H08 officials will not work on the municipal election day but will be in
place for 2022. She added that at this time there are no voters to notify of the temporary
transfer, but the staff will follow up again after the voter registration deadline.
Motion carried unanimously.
5.c. 2021-2023 Appointment of Chief Judges and Judges
Chair Carter introduced the next item of business, noting that at least two of the three
among chief judge and judges must reside in the precinct. There are 16 vacancies to be
filled among 43 precincts. While there are now 15 to 16 names before the Board, not all
can be appointed at this time due to the residency requirements.
Member Kemp asked whether the names submitted by Susanne Werner on behalf of the
Democratic Party were already reviewed by staff? Chair Carter reviewed the four names
received from Ms. Werner to fill vacant positions:
• W16 – Alex Lee
Board Minutes – 09/14/2021
• CF02 – Irving Trust
• H12 – Edward Beckes
• W24 – Veronica McLaurin Brown
Ms. Werner asked the Board to consider Ms. McLaurin Brown for appointment to
Precinct W17 instead of W24 to avoid a second non-resident transfer in W24 in deference
to the recommended appointment of John David Purnell as the non-resident Chief Judge.
Secretary Miller affirmed his position is to appoint the duly recommended nominees put
forth by staff. He is willing to engage in further discussion. There are several names
beyond the five that were duly and timely put forward by staff that the Board already
voted 4 to 1 to approve at the last meeting. He stated he would like the Board to approve
those appointments unanimously, then consider the appointment of these further names.
Secretary Miller moved to appoint the five chief judges and judges that remain
unappointed that were duly and timely recommended by staff. Those five are:
• Karl Ricanek III, H10
• Darla Jane Green Hughes, H10
• Margaret Davit, W13
• John David Purnell, W24
• Kathryn Lawson, W27
He reminded that the Board voted in the last meeting 4 in favor and 1 against those
appointments.
Chair Carter asked for clarification of the resident status of the nominees. Director
Hunter-Havens confirmed that Ms. Hughes and Ms. Lawson are residents of the precinct
to which they are recommended for appointment. Member Hunter seconded the motion.
Chair Carter reviewed NCGS §163-41 (c), second paragraph, where the party chairs’
recommendations are insufficient, the Board may name chief judges and judges who
reside in that precinct without the recommendation of a party chair. That would be two
of the five that Secretary Miller named in his motion. He has no problem with
considering the other three also but thinks it contemplates making the resident and
nonresident appointments separately. He recognizes his view is inconsistent with the
guidance provided by the SBE legal department in two respects. First, they say we
“must” appoint, and the statute says we “may” appoint, we have been over that. Second,
the statute focuses on registered voters in the precinct, but then gets into registered voters
from other precincts. He does not mind tackling two steps at once and has no problem
with the motion on the floor but wants to track the steps as they are laid out in the statute.
Member Bryan said SBE clearly could not mean “must” in direct conflict with the statute.
Chair Carter said he is inclined to consider they meant “may” instead of “must” and
noted the SBE had the opportunity to retract their guidance and have chosen not to, but is
not inclined to argue about it further. The statute says “may”.
Secretary Miller said, as a non-lawyer on the Board, he feels like the Board is getting into
the weeds. This is still the starting point for him. He added that as practice has gone, the
Board has not had non-resident judges and chief judges recommended by staff rejected
by the Board. The Board is departing from culture and practice.
Board Minutes – 09/14/2021
Chair Carter said that at step three, the Board must have diligently sought names of
resident voters to fill the open positions with in-precinct nominees. Secretary Miller
asked if he understands Chair Carter to be saying he would be more comfortable in
voting on the names of the two resident appointees first and then move onto the transfers
recommended to the Board? Chair Carter responded that he is not saying the law
compels the Board to appoint the resident officials, but that the Board may appoint them.
It compels the Board to diligently seek to fill those positions. It raises the question
whether voting against those nominees is the Board “diligently seeking” to fill those
posts with residents of the precincts, or is the Board not being diligent enough? That is a
question each Board member must answer for herself or himself. Chair Carter said he
would be happy for Secretary Miller to bifurcate the motion, but he is not going to amend
the motion.
Member Hunter said, for clarification, the SBE is getting “must appoint” from NCGS
§163-41(a), setting the threshold requirements that nominees are residents of the county,
of good moral character, and able to read and right, and extrapolate from that, if the
names presented meet those criteria, the Board must appoint them. Chair Carter said he
tends to think that is correct even though the SBE did not come right out and say that. He
accepts that as a plausible way to reconcile their guidance with what the statute says. He
sees those requirements as a baseline minimum and not an exhaustive list of
requirements. That is as close as he can come to what the SBE means. Member Hunter
agreed that this is their interpretation of the law, they are the experts, and she intends to
follow their advice as the experts. It is the Board’s responsibility to seek their guidance
and put it into action. Chair Carter said his perspective is slightly different, that the
Board is well-advised to seek their guidance, but also to weigh that guidance against the
plain language of the statute, and when there is any daylight between the two, the Board
needs to be very careful to adhere to the statute and not to conflicting guidance. Member
Hunter said it may be expedient to divide the question as one part may be more
controversial than the other.
Secretary Miller agreed to withdraw his previous motion and instead moved to approve in
H10 as Judge, Darla Jane Green Hughes, a resident of H10 and not a transfer, and in W27
as Judge, Kathryn Lawson also noting she is not a transfer, second by Member Bryan.
Chair Carter called for any further discussion. Member Kemp noted that with the
appointment of Ms. Lawson in W27 there are already two Democrats appointed as judges
there and sees the need for a Republican judge in that precinct. In H10 there are no
municipal voters now, so anybody assigned to H10 now is not available to fill judge and
precinct needs when they might be needed in the city, whereas the Board can appoint
before the 2022 primary when there will be more people available to serve. This allows
the Board to conserve judges by not assigning them to precincts that are not voting this
year, giving the staff and the Chair more choices to fill vacancies. Secretary Miller said
he understood this is a staff nominee and he understands the Board’s duty is to appoint,
not hoard officials. He disagrees with Member Kemp in this use of personal,
idiosyncratic criteria added to the list the Board must consider. Member Bryan asked to
hear from the Director regarding saving judges.
Director Hunter-Havens advised that precinct H10 does have municipal voters this fall,
about 110 at last check. We try not to inconvenience that many voters by a temporary
Board Minutes – 09/14/2021
transfer to another precinct. With a footprint that small, a chief judge and two judges
serve as a smaller presence to assure those voters can vote and receive the same level of
service as the other precincts with more registered voters. Administratively it is
extremely helpful to complete these chief judge and judge appointments so that these
officials, who have not served for ten or eleven months, can build their experience,
update their knowledge of statutory changes, and prepare to serve in the primary election
when there will be a much larger turnout. To save individuals in hopes we can find more
people, from an administrative standpoint, does not allow us to build their skills and build
their knowledge base so they can better serve the voters in this county. We have a trained
election official pool of almost a thousand officials. In start making these
recommendations, the key factors are who is available and willing to serve. We are
mindful in all our recommendations whether they are residents of the precinct or strategic
transfers. Certain positions, such as chief judge, can be very challenging to fill. Many
experienced judges are hesitant to take on chief judge responsibilities. Administratively
we encourage the Board to appoint as many experienced chief judges and judges as
possible so to provide the level of service that voters in New Hanover County are used to
receiving.
Member Bryan asked Director Hunter-Havens, if there are 110 eligible voters, how many
do you expect will vote Election Day versus One Stop? The Director responded that,
traditionally, there is less turnout during Early Voting for a municipal election. During a
presidential election, about 60 percent voted early voting in-person, the highest it has
ever been. In a municipal election, turnout runs around 18 percent, and of those voters
who voted in the last municipal election, approximately 20 percent voted during the early
voting period.
Member Kemp said it has been nearly a month since the Board first considered these
appointments and wondered if any additional residents of the precinct have expressed an
interest in serving in any of the precincts where there are vacancies not yet filled. Are we
going back and revisiting steps we considered in the previous meeting? The names
received from the party chairs were appointed. The next step is to diligently seek people
who live in the precinct who are available. We are back to the names that were originally
submitted so I am asking whether staff have received names of others willing to serve
who might replace a transfer or may be a Republican or a Democrat where there is none
that could be appointed. Director Hunter-Havens had said she was expecting additional
judges to step forward. The Director responded that she was not expecting additional
judges to step forward. We have continued to receive responses from the pool of
officials, and we have received additional applications from individuals with no election
experience who we will continue to on-board to be available to fill vacancies as needed to
give these individuals experience so they will be ready to step into a leadership role. We
want judges to get experience now to be ready for the primary and general elections in
2022.
Chair Carter addressed Member Kemp’s question: these are the only two people that we
are aware of, whether names given by county staff or either party, nominated to serve as
judges in the precinct in which they live. He asked Director Hunter-Havens if that is her
understanding and she confirmed it is. Chair Carter asked if anyone has any information
Board Minutes – 09/14/2021
to the contrary. Addressing Member Kemp, he asked if that clarifies things. Member
Kemp concurred.
Chair Carter called for any further discussion on the motion before the Board. Hearing
none, he called for the vote. Chair Carter, Secretary Miller, Members Bryan and Hunter
voted aye; Member Kemp voted no. The motion failed for lack of a unanimous vote of
all the members.
Member Bryan asked whether we know where we can reach some common ground, so
we don’t need to go through the entire process? He would like to get some proposals on
the table to get this work completed. Member Kemp contended the Board has plowed
this ground already, that we are now is in the second sentence of the second paragraph of
§163-41(c). We have received from the party chairs names that live outside the precinct
and he is prepared to nominate those folks to serve those precincts. If the Board
approved the previous motion, those nominees would not be appointable, because there is
already one out-of-precinct transfer appointed. Member Hunter pointed out that the two
names just voted on are not transfers. Member Bryan agreed that in the previous motion,
which he seconded, both reside in the precincts to which they were nominated. Member
Kemp said the Board has previously voted on these names.
Chair Carter said that as part of the Board’s required diligence in seeking to fill the
positions, multiple votes to reach unanimity are appropriate. Appointing Ms. Green in
H10 would not prevent appointing a Republican transfer to a position in that precinct,
while appointing Ms. Lawson in W27 would. Member Kemp said that there are already
two Democrats appointed in W27.
Chair Carter called for a motion to vote on these two names separately. Secretary Miller
moved to name Darla Jane Green Hughes as judge in H10, second by Member Hunter.
She pointed out that Ms. Green Hughes has experience in five previous elections, is a
resident of the precinct, presumably of good moral character and can read and write. She
meets all the criteria for appointment. There being no further discussion, the motion
carried unanimously.
Member Hunter noted Ms. Lawson has served in one previous election, is unaffiliated
which makes no difference according to the statute, and moved the appointment of
Kathyrn Lawson to serve as Judge in W27, second by Secretary Miller.
Hearing no further discussion, the Chair called for the vote. Chair Carter, Secretary
Miller, Members Bryan and Hunter voted aye; Member Kemp voted no. The motion
failed for lack of a unanimous vote of all the members.
Member Kemp moved to appoint Dorothy Playforth as Judge in W27, second by Member
Bryan. Her name was submitted by the county Republican chair prior to August 17.
Chair Carter said that Member Kemp’s motion falls under §163-41(c), second paragraph.
This motion presupposes that the Board has already diligently sought to fill the position
with in-precinct officials. Once the Board satisfies that pre-requisite, the statute then says
the Board may appoint out-of-precinct officials. Those appointments may be based on
recommendations from the staff and the political parties. But the statute also says, where
Board Minutes – 09/14/2021
possible, the Board is required to seek and adopt the recommendation of the county
parties. He finds that particularly important because that same language is not found in
the immediately preceding section. He understands the statute to say the parties play an
explicit role when the Board is operating under this step of the statute. There may be a
difference of opinion among the Board members as to whether we have diligently sought
to fill the position with an in-precinct official. He is not taking a position on that quite
yet. But if we get past the pre-requisite and do act on the positions, then we are required
to consider the input from both parties. [Chair Carter then excused himself from the
meeting and asked Secretary Miller to take over the chair.]
Secretary Miller addressed questions for further information to Member Kemp. The
name that you just put forward was submitted when? Member Kemp responded it was
submitted on August 17 and clarified the name being moved for appointment. Secretary
Miller noted that she is not the person currently on the list entitled “All Remaining
Vacancies and Suggestions” in the Board packet, which lists Samantha Nguyen in W27,
not Dorothy Playforth. Unless I am mistaken, this is a new name not presented before.
Mr. Rothlein, representing the county Republican party, stated her name was submitted in
the beginning for W26. Secretary Miller asked Director Hunter-Havens if she has any
documentation of what Mr. Rothlein said. She said she would have to check the emails.
She has submitted to the Board each updated version; this is the fifth or sixth effort to
summarize all the names that have been put forth. She does not have any information
about Dorothy Playforth, but the Board can take any action it chooses. She understood
Samantha Nguyen is the name, but may be mistaken. Member Bryan noted that Ms.
Nguyen is also listed under W26. Director Hunter-Havens said that may have been an
error on her part, for which she apologized. Is Dorothy Playforth a resident of W27?
Mr. Kemp reported she is a resident of H13. That means she is a non-resident put
forward by the county party chair, put forward under §163-41(c), second paragraph. The
Board has made a diligent effort, having voted twice without success on Kathryn
Lawson. Secretary Miller said there may be competing interpretations of what has and
hasn’t happened, and that is okay. Clarifying, Dorothy Playforth of precinct H13 has
been recommended to serve as Judge in W27. Has there been any documentation that she
is eligible? [Chair Carter returned to the meeting and resumed the chair.] Director
Hunter-Havens advised that both party chairs have submitted names without additional
information. She is not in the precinct officials pool.
Chair Carter called for any further discussion of the motion on the table. Member Hunter
said this is a blatant effort to elbow in Republican judges. The Board has an eligible
person who is a resident of the precinct, and has met all the criteria that is outlined by the
statute, and Mr. Kemp wants summarily to not approve her, even though she meets all
those requirements, in favor of a partisan move to place a Republican in that position.
She stated she would not vote to approve the motion. Member Bryan objected to the
description as “a blatant effort” and said that there is a genuine effort to balance things
out. Having a Republican serve in this position he can support based on the statutory
interpretation and the Board is required to approve the nomination of the party chair after
diligent effort. We are looking at risks/rewards here. The staff needs to have everybody
in place. There are some places in this process where partisanship is involved because
we have a particular governor in place. We don’t need to assume that the partisan side
always wins, and the other side always loses. This is appropriate under the rules, but may
Board Minutes – 09/14/2021
not be what everyone wants. At some point, the Board must appoint somebody. On
average, having two Democratic judges and one Republican judge is not a situation
where we need to spend an inordinate amount of time to get this completed. We are
doing more harm to the election than we would appointing two Democrats and one
Republican to the voting site.
Chair Carter thanked Member Bryan for his comments and called on Secretary Miller.
He asked Member Kemp if he has additional names he wants to put forth, other than the
five currently before the Board and recommended by staff? Member Kemp asked the
Chair if that is relevant to the motion? Chair Carter said he is not sure if he understands
the question, but it is probably relevant. Secretary Miller addressed the relevance of his
question. As he stated at the outset, his starting point is that the names before the Board
for appointment are duly recommended nominees from staff. He is not prepared to vote
for any other nominees. Member Bryan argued that we must. Member Hunter said she
would argue that the Board must appoint the slate of resident precinct officials submitted
to the Board, and did not. That is what the statute requires. And now we are choosing to
implement the “shall” part of the statute which is ridiculous because we did not do what
the law clearly states. There are two Democrats and an Unaffiliated person. To say that
is favorably weighted one way or the other… that is what the law requires.
Chair Carter called for any further discussion regarding the motion on the floor. Member
Kemp said it seems to him that we are referring to the staff documentation on the statute,
where the word “must” occurs, and not the actual statute, where the word “may” occurs.
It requires a unanimous vote. I do not believe I am going against the statute. I believe I
am following the statute, which is my oath, and I have the prerogative under the main
clause to vote no, and I have done that. I did that on September 1, and I would have done
that on August 17 if I had the chance to review the names prior to the meeting. But I did
not have that opportunity to review the names prior to the meeting. They were presented
to us along with guidance that was counter to the statute, and I was not able to digest the
two of those, so I said, “not voting.” I am diligently trying to follow the statute.
Member Hunter said the agenda and all the supporting documents were provided in
advance. To say that you did not have the documentation is incorrect. All members
received the information in advance. She acknowledged she did not understand it and
needed some explanation when we got to the meeting on August 17. But we had all the
information in advance of the meeting. My second point is that, if you look at the actual
statute book, I guess you don’t have that, I can show you that, under §163-41, it says
“persons appointed to the office must be registered voters, residents of the county in
which the precinct is located, of good repute, and able to read and write.” Those are the
criteria. Then we go off into the alternative selection once we are not able to meet those
criteria. That is what the statute says. Responding to a question from Chair Carter,
Member Hunter confirmed she is reading from section (a).
Member Bryan suggested the Board proceed to vote on the motion. Chair Carter agreed
to treat that suggestion as motion to cut off debate or calling the question. Secretary
Miller asked the Chair to restate the motion. The motion is to appoint Dorothy Playforth
as a judge in precinct W27. Members Kemp and Bryan voted aye; Chair Carter,
Secretary Miller and Member Hunter voted no. Motion failed for lack of a majority.
Board Minutes – 09/14/2021
Chair Carter called on Ms. Werner, saying the Board would hear from one member of the
NHC Democratic Party and one member of the NHC Republican Party to share their
thoughts.
Ms. Werner stated that the Board needs to abide by the statute, in which the priority is
that the appointee be a resident, and the Board should be voting for the recommendations
of the staff. Chair Carter called on Mr. Rothlein as a representative of the NHC
Republican Party. Back on September 1, the Board asked Will Knecht to submit names
for six positions, and he provided those names. The Board should be able to vote on each
of those names.
Chair Carter thanked Ms. Werner and Mr. Rothlein for their comments. He recalled
telling Mr. Knecht two weeks ago to submit any additional names he had. We all want to
appoint precinct officials so that elections can run smoothly, so that the precincts are fully
staffed, so that the Director and her team have time to train these folks, without causing
undue stress in their lives, and so we are doing the best that we can to serve the voters of
New Hanover County. All five of us, no matter what our differences are, we want to
appoint people to these offices.
Member Bryan said he wanted to find whatever middle ground we can. He senses that
there are two very fixed positions, but is trying to find points of agreement so we can get
this done. Obviously, we don’t all agree on the interpretation of the statute or whether we
should follow the State Board’s advice. When possible, out of respect for the other party,
for what we are trying to do, which is to be able to have a sense that their party is
represented in as many polling places as possible and would reduce the likelihood of
complaints or irregularities. Getting caught up in the language and trying to block that
effort may be understandable given your interpretations but is counterproductive too. I
think the goal for both sides is, as the Board of Elections and from the staff point of view,
to have zero to few complaints about decision made in the field. We have enough legal
authority to do that, that we should keep it as balanced as possible. You know my
position that the risks are very low by putting in place the staff and party
recommendations, who take oaths, are trained, and I have very little worry that there will
be any accusations of impropriety. But understanding the more fixed positions on the
Board, I am trying to see if there is a way to find legitimate guidance to get us there and
let the staff do their jobs. I don’t think, personally, either way we go, whether we appoint
all six Republicans or not, there is going to be problems with the election. We reduce
that possibility by following the guidance. I understand everyone’s position and I respect
it. We can agree to disagree agreeably on various points. If we totally disagree, we don’t
fulfill what we are obligated to do which is to complete the election.
Secretary Miller spoke to Member Bryan’s comments about seeking middle ground. He
asked Member Kemp his thoughts on the appointment of John David Purnell in W24 with
two vacant positions left, and what his considerations are; the same for Margaret Davit in
W13. Mr. Kemp responded regarding Purnell in W24, he understands that includes the
UNCW campus and there are no in-precinct judges of any party so someone must be
appointed there. He said he is willing to approve Mr. Purnell. Regarding W13, we are
doing something our Director says she likes to avoid, transferring someone into the
Board Minutes – 09/14/2021
precinct who has only one year of election experience which prevents any other transfers
to serve in that precinct
The Chair recognized Director Hunter-Havens to respond. She said that in
recommending the appointment of a non-resident chief judge, we are very mindful of the
skills needed. Chief judge positions are the most difficult to fill. These are critical
positions as all voters and all officials look to the chief judge for guidance and as their
primary point of contact in the polling place. Ms. Davit is willing to serve, has
experience in one prior election, and in all our contacts with her and our assessment of
her, she has the skills and the abilities that we feel will make her a good chief judge. By
no means have I said that we do not sometimes recommend a transfer chief judge. I
believe my statement was that unless we have more understanding of the service history
in the precinct, we strategically save transfers to fill chief judge positions. We ask the
Board to appoint residents to those positions because, as we get closer to Election Day,
chief judges and judges suddenly become unavailable. We will have some assistants
appointed as chief judges and judges at the last minute. We will often use a transfer to
fill that position because a resident assistant will not be able to step up. We try to avoid
transfers if possible. In this case, traditionally, W13 would need a transfer chief judge
and Ms. Davit is willing to step into that position.
Chair Carter called on Secretary Miller. He made a motion to appoint John David Purnell
as chief judge for W24, second by Member Hunter. Chair Carter called for any
discussion. Member Kemp went back to the earlier discussion of the statute, prior to
inquiring my opinion, it was stated that §163-41(a) requires appointment of a resident of
the precinct, but I am not seeing that. I am seeing that it says that the appointee must be a
resident of the county in which the precinct is located. But they do not have to be
residents of the precinct. I do not see where section (a) applies to that appointment at all,
and I believe we are through the first part of section (c) where we ask county party chairs
to submit names for transfers. Member Hunter asked if this applies to the appointment of
John David Purnell. The statute is permissive in the first instance because we “may”
appoint, but if we do appoint, we “shall” appoint those recommended by the party chairs.
Member Kemp asked the chair to restate the motion. The motion is to appoint John
David Purnell as chief judge for W24. Member Hunter noted staff’s report of his
qualifications: he has served in nine previous elections, he has the desired level of
experience for this precinct, he meets the criteria, he is a non-resident transfer who meets
the staff criteria for recommending his appointment. Motion carried unanimously.
Secretary Miller moved to appoint Margaret Davit as chief judge in W13, second by
Member Hunter. Chair Carter called for any discussion. Member Kemp made a
substitute motion to appoint Thomas S. Morris as chief judge in W13, following the
county Republican party chair’s nomination and § 163-41 (c), second paragraph, second
sentence as the authority for that substitution. Chair Carter asked Member Kemp whether
his motion is an amendment of the motion on the floor. Member Kemp agreed to treat
his motion as an amendment rather than a substitute motion. Member Bryan made a
procedural point that, while an amendment may be possible, for the sake of simplicity, it
may be better to vote on one motion and then take up the next. Member Bryan asked
whether the original movant, Secretary Miller, would accept the amendment. Secretary
Miller summarized the discussion, that he made a motion which was seconded, there is a
Board Minutes – 09/14/2021
motion to amend which needs a second, then the Board votes on the amendment. After
additional discussion, Member Bryan seconded the motion to amend. For clarification,
Secretary Miller said the Board will vote first on whether to amend the motion, and if the
amendment passes, the Board will have further discussion and vote on the motion as
amended. Members Kemp and Bryan voted aye; Chair Carter, Secretary Miller, and
Member Hunter voted no. Motion to amend failed for lack of a majority.
Chair Carter returned to the original motion to appoint Margaret Davit as chief judge for
W13 and called for the votes. Chair Carter, Secretary Miller, Members Bryan and Hunter
voted aye; Member Kemp voted no. Motion failed for lack of unanimous vote of all the
members.
Member Bryan said he wants to avoid the appearance of partisanship and make more
effort to find the balance in these precincts instead of blocking the appointments.
Chair Carter distributed a resolution he prepared, entitled “A Unanimous Resolution of
the New Hanover County Board of Elections.” He said it may need to be modified but he
hopes it will serve as a basis for appointing a substantial number of additional judges.
Member Hunter moved to appoint a W16 resident put forth by the county Democratic
Party, Alexander Field Lee, as judge for W16, second by Secretary Miller. Chair Carter
called for discussion. Member Kemp asked Director Hunter-Havens to confirm that Mr.
Lee is a resident of precinct W16. She confirmed Mr. Lee resides in precinct W16 and
was nominated by the county Democratic party chair, to whom she reached out for
additional names as Chair Carter requested, to give both parties the equal opportunity to
submit additional nominees. In response to Member Kemp’s question, the Director
confirmed Mr. Lee’s name did not appear on the first list presented to the August 17
meeting. Confirming there was no further discussion, Chair Carter called for the vote.
Motion carried unanimously.
Secretary Miller asked Chair Carter if any of the names on the list he presented are
resident of the precincts. Chair Carter first pointed out that three of the names on his
proposed list have already been appointed: Darla Jane Green Hughes in precinct H10,
John David Purnell in precinct W24, and now Alexander Field Lee in W16. Noting the
amount of time already spent on this, he asked whether the Board would like to table
further discussion of precinct official appointments to address the remainder of the
agenda and then come back to the appointments, or if a break would be helpful. Member
Hunter would like to identify those names on which the members can reach agreement
and approve those, and then consider the names where agreement might be more
problematic.
Member Kemp moved to appoint the names that Chair Carter proposed that have not
already been approved. Member Bryan said he was looking for one of the Democrats on
the Board to second the motion. Member Hunter suggested it would be more fruitful to
consider the names one by one. Secretary Miller said he is willing to appoint any of the
names who are residents of the precinct to which they are appointed, as with Mr. Lee’s
appointment. Chair Carter confirmed none of the remaining names reside in the precinct
of appointment.
Board Minutes – 09/14/2021
Member Kemp requested clarification of which part of §163-41(c) the Board is
following. Have we “diligently sought” or are we in the second paragraph, second
sentence? Chair Carter said in response that each Board member needs to decide that for
himself/herself. For himself, he feels the Board is very close to having done their
diligence and have worked hard at this. There is disagreement as to which requirements
still operate.
Member Bryan asked what happens if the Board is deadlocked. Member Kemp said that
is what section (d) addresses. Chair Carter said that before we get to section (d), we
would look at those officials appointed two years ago who might be still willing to serve.
Director Hunter-Havens said that, for positions that are listed as vacant, staff has reached
out to the incumbents and not received a response or declined to accept the appointment
this time. Those appointees continue to serve until their successors are appointed. If that
appointee is not available to serve for this one election, then that vacancy in the
appointment can be filled administratively on an election-by-election basis. Previous
Boards have been able to do that by unanimous vote. If not, then it becomes an
appointment by the Chair. One Stop voting begins October 14 and all election training
begins September 28. The administrative deadline for new precinct official applications
is September 21. We will prioritize by position applied for, chief judge and judge first,
and chronologically by date application was submitted. The last date for information
sessions to explain the position and role and assess skills is September 28. The last date
to process HR paperwork is October 4. We continue to accept applications after that
date, informing the candidate that their name will be kept on file for appointments for the
next election and will consider them for appointment to any vacancies that occur. We
need to move forward with the critical appointments to conduct a successful municipal
election.
Member Hunter offered her observations. Looking at the remaining suggestions from
Chair Carter, and looking first at the Republican names, Crystal Gayle Wolfe is the only
name offered for judge in FP06 and is a transfer, and she is willing to appoint her. And
the same is true for Samantha Nguyen in W26; hers is the only name to be put forward.
Member Hunter moved to approve the appointment of these two nominees. Member
Kemp said there is already a motion on the floor, his motion to approve the remaining
names on Chair Carter’s proposed list. Chair Carter said there was no second for that
motion. Member Kemp asked whether Member Bryan seconded that motion. Member
Bryan said he did not. Chair Carter called again for a second for Member Kemp’s
motion. Hearing none, Member Hunter’s motion is in order, second by Member Kemp.
Secretary Miller discussed sequencing of the appointment decisions. He does not agree
with that as it does not track for him. He remains cautious about jumping around to the
different points that different Board members have raised about sequencing. While he is
willing to support approval of these two nominees, he still believes the importance of
making the other staff-recommended appointments. If we could approve the three
remaining recommended appointments in one motion, he would support that. Chair
Carter asked if that is a motion to amend the motion? Secretary Miller moved to amend
the motion to appoint Karl Ricanek III as chief judge in H10; Margaret Davit as chief
Board Minutes – 09/14/2021
judge in W13; Kathryn Lawson as judge in W27; Crystal Gail Wolfe as judge in FP06;
and Samantha Nguyen as judge in W26, second by Member Hunter.
Member Kemp said three of those nominees have already been voted on tonight and that
his vote will remain the same. Voting on these names one at a time is more productive,
or go back to the original motion. Chair Carter called for any further discussion on the
amendment to the motion. Member Hunter said this motion is in the spirit of finding
common ground. She said her position is fixed only in the law which requires certain
things. As a Board member, she is ethically bound by the law. This is an effort for the
parties to get what they want, and more importantly, the staff is getting what they need to
move forward to run an efficient election. She added to Member Bryan’s sentiments that
a compromise is needed. This is that compromise. Chair Carter noted that when we get
into section (c), second paragraph, where it says, “provided that where possible the
county board shall seek and adopt the recommendation of the county chairman of the
political party affected”, that last phrase, “of the political party affected” is not clear to
him. It is not clear that the Board is required to seek and adopt the party chair’s
recommendations. It seems to suggest that the Board needs to seek and adopt the
recommendation of the chair of one party or the other party but is unclear how the Board
determines which of the two parties is “the affected party.” Member Bryan said he
assumes it means the party that is not represented among the chief judge and judge
positions. Chair Carter responded that is an assumption with no basis in the statute.
Member Bryan said it is a logical inference, but without reference to the legislative
history, it is not clear. Chair Carter said that should not hold us up as several members
have noted there is a need to move ahead with the appointments. There is a sequence, but
we are not in agreement what the sequence is. We are doing our best to follow the statute
as we understand it. The motion is before the Board to appoint two individuals, then
amended to add three additional individuals, and when discussion is completed, proceed
to vote on the amendment.
Member Kemp asked whether the correct Karl Ricanek is nominated. Director Hunter-
Havens said the correct voter, Karl Ricanek III, is the nominee and is a registered voter.
Secretary Miller confirmed all the names included in the motion. He said, not being a
lawyer, he is not able to parse the statute the way other members are. He feels the Board
is cherry-picking certain points. The option on the table seems to be that Member Kemp
can get two of his preferred names on this list, or none. He is not prepared to vote on the
transfer names before we vote on the Board-recommended names. He will follow the
initial guidance given, what Board practice has been previously, the routine process, and
as to inserting partisanship into this process, only one party started investigating the voter
history of unaffiliated voters to discern whether they were truly Republicans or truly
Democrats. He rejects the statement that insisting on voting on the recommendations is
somehow a partisan move. This disruption to the routine process is what injects
partisanship into the decision. You get two or none, and further discussion will not
change my position.
Hearing no further discussion on the motion to amend the motion, Chair Carter called for
the vote. Chair Carter, Secretary Miller, Members Bryan and Hunter voted aye; Member
Kemp voted no. Motion passed 4 to 1, carries by majority.
Board Minutes – 09/14/2021
Chair Carter called for any discussion on the motion as amended. Hearing none, he
reviewed the motion and called for the vote. Chair Carter, Secretary Miller, Members
Bryan and Hunter voted aye; Member Kemp voted no. The motion failed for lack of a
unanimous vote of all the members.
Member Bryan asked if the Board should go back to the original motion appointing two
individuals? Member Hunter understood Secretary Miller to say either appoint all
unanimously or none. Member Bryan said earlier your goal was if we can get any
appointed, now refusing. Member Miller responded that after many weeks and many
hours of intransigence and obstruction, whatever the good intentions may be…. Member
Kemp stated his objection to “intransigence and obstruction.” Chair Carter called for
each member to allow the other to speak and to preserve decorum. Secretary Miller
started over, saying that after many hours of non-negotiable “no’s”, he feels the Board
has reached all the unanimity that we can reach. Member Bryan called on the Chair to
move on to other business.
Chair Carter asked if anyone wanted to discuss the precinct appointments further at this
time. Member Kemp asked the Chair to clarify where the Board is in section (c). Chair
Carter said that he understands different Board members are of a different mind as to
where the Board is in section (c) at this time. Member Kemp said it seems that Secretary
Miller’s complaint is that the Board has made a diligent effort. Chair Carter declined to
characterize what Secretary Miller feels. Member Kemp cut off the Chair and said if
Secretary Miller is going to characterize me the way he has, then I would say that is
diligent. Chair Carter invited Member Kemp to speak for himself, that he feels he has
been diligent. Member Kemp said that he and the Board have been diligent in their
efforts to fill the positions with residents of the precinct. Chair Carter agreed the Board
has made some progress in this meeting to do that, and expressed his appreciation to
Members Kemp and Hunter and to Secretary Miller and Member Bryan. This has been a
challenging process for the Board. There are certain requirements in the statute that
make it particularly challenging. At this time the Board is well served to move on to
other business, taking this matter off the table and returning to it at the end of the
meeting. Member Bryan said he may need to leave the meeting as it has already run
longer than he expected. If his presence affects items that require unanimous vote of the
Board, he encouraged the chair to take up those matters first and then he can leave. Chair
Carter said he not aware of any other agenda items that require unanimity of the Board
other than appointment of precinct officials. He understands that the meetings are
running longer, the business before the Board is important, and the Board members are
all present. Member Bryan said he is aware of all that, but he sees little prospect of
reaching a unanimous decision as each side has indicated their differing positions.
3. Director’s Report
Chair Carter called on Director Hunter-Havens for her reports. [Member Kemp left the
meeting.]
a. Financial Update
Board Minutes – 09/14/2021
The Director explained the template for the monthly financial update, giving a snapshot
of the revised operating budget for fiscal year 2021-2022, with year-to-date expenditures,
and the previous fiscal year for comparison of the actual expenditures for the previous
and the current fiscal years. Bear in mind that this fiscal year is different from the last
because the elections are different. In FY2021-2022 there are two elections, the
municipal election in November 2021 and the primary election in March 2022, versus in
2020-2021 with one presidential election, a unique election with unique expenditures that
were grant-funded. This year there are significant encumbered funds, related to the
temporary employees who will support election preparations in the office, separate from
the election officials. The encumbered $219,000 for Contracted Services reflects what
we expect to spend for both elections, through the 2022 primary election. We have made
an offer to fill one of the vacant positions to someone who was working through an
employment agency and until her contract ends with the agency, we will be paying her
through Contracted Services for thirteen weeks. [Member Kemp returned to the
meeting.] Note that transfers and adjustments are zero. She can cover the increased
expense through Contracted Services. She invited questions from the Board members.
Member Hunter asked the Director, noting the line item for Rent, whether the office is
required to pay rent to the County for the office space. The line item covers rent for
private polling places for Election Day, based on anticipated rent of $125 for use over a
three-day period: for set-up on Monday, use on Tuesday, and pick up on Wednesday.
Member Bryan reported that he, the Director and Member Hunter met with the SBE the
previous Friday, to present the county’s One Stop plans. He wants to understand the
impact on the budget. They presented the majority and minority plans for the alternative
second One Stop sites. After their presentations, SBE adopted both plans, which the
County Board had not agreed to and did not anticipate. New Hanover County is now
directed to have three sites for One Stop Early Voting, which SBE based on the County’s
recent sale of the hospital, making the County cash-rich and therefore able to afford the
additional site. Conceptually, the plan is not a bad idea, they were just not aware of the
SBE’s authority to make that decision. He asked Director Hunter-Havens how that
decision plays into the department’s budget. She estimated the cost of full staffing at
$25,000 per site. In the municipal election planning process, the Director sends an
estimate of the cost of the election to the municipalities for their budget planning. The
municipalities are charged with covering the cost of the election. That estimate included
one One Stop site. The largest cost is salaries for One Stop officials, based on two shifts
on the weekdays, nine hours on weekdays, over 15 days. The weekends are staffed with
a single shift and covers only the second weekend and the final Saturday. Staff is
assigned with consideration for the same factors as the election day staffing: bipartisan
representation, prior service history, and a strong management team. In consultation with
Assistant County Manager Sheryl Kelly, the county has agreed to absorb the additional
cost. Assistant Manager Kelly noted that by statute municipalities pay the cost of
municipal elections. Considering that they did not have this cost in their budgets, in
particular the beach towns which have smaller budgets, the County opted not to pass the
additional costs along to the municipalities. Chair Carter expressed the appreciation of
the Board for the County’s decision. Director Hunter-Havens reported that the assigned
budget analysts are on notice that there may be additional adjustments related to the cost
Board Minutes – 09/14/2021
for the primary election as well. Member Bryan added that they must have done such a
good job in presenting the two plans that they convinced the SBE both plans were right.
Chair Carter called on Member Hunter for her observations on the SBE meeting.
Member Hunter noted that their agenda is structured similarly to ours, citing the statutory
authority for the item, which indicated that the SBE may consider plans A, B, or C. They
are not limited to choosing between the plans presented and may create their own plan.
She had noted that as she prepared for the meeting, so she was not shocked by the
decision because the SBE is very supportive of expanding access, as much as possible
and where they can. That seemed to be the impetus behind the decision, making voting
more accessible for the voters and favoring enabling more voters to vote. Chair Carter
thanked the Board members and the Director for participating in the meeting which took
about two hours. Member Hunter noted that Director Hunter-Havens did a great job
answering the questions. Chair Carter added that, while this was not the Board’s original
plan, it will offer more opportunity for on-the-job training for next year’s primary and
general elections. Hearing no further questions, Chair Carter called on Director Hunter-
Havens to continue with her report.
b. List Maintenance
She reported that the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) report gives a snapshot of
the changes in voter registration rolls over the period from July 1 to August 31, 2021.
These reports reflect the tools available to gather this snapshot but is not a reconciliation
document. Over the period from July 1 to August 31, 2021, 1,203 voters were removed
in accordance with the statute, including 164 Inactive voters; and processed 2,155 new
registrations, 939 duplicate registrations, and 1,878 registration updates. The large
majority come in from DMV, but as we get closer to the registration deadline and into the
higher profile 2022 primary and general elections, the pace of registration activity will
increase, based on experience. Some registration activity was suppressed last year by
COVID.
Member Hunter asked for an explanation of NCOA. NCOA stands for National Change
of Address. Confirmation postcards are sent twice a year, typically in January and June,
to voters for whom we have received information from USPS of a possible change of
address, showing both the address provided by USPS and the address we have on record,
giving the voter the opportunity to update their voter registration address. The voter may
check the box for their correct current address. Postcards which are returned as
undeliverable are resent to the address we have on record. If the second postcard is
returned undeliverable, the voter’s status is changed to Inactive. To vote, the voter either
confirms the address of record or provides an updated address, and can proceed to vote.
Member Kemp asked the Director if she could supply a June list maintenance report if
that has not been publicly available. The Director agreed to run the report and post it on
the website. Hearing no further questions or comments about list maintenance, Chair
Carter thanked Director Hunter-Havens for her reports.
Board Minutes – 09/14/2021
5. New Business
Chair Carter turned to New Business, the 2021 municipal elections notice and called on
Director Hunter-Havens to speak to it.
a. 2021 Municipal Elections Notice
The Director explained this is the notice required by statute. The legal notice is prepared
with guidance from the State Board and contains information about the dates and
locations of One Stop voting and Election Day voting; the procedures for requesting and
submitting absentee-by-mail ballots; the dates, times and location that the Board will
meet to consider and act on applications for absentee ballots; and the voter registration
options and deadlines. Member Bryan moved approval of the 2021 Municipal Election
Notice, second by Member Hunter. Member Kemp asked whether the listed delivery
methods for return of absentee-by-mail ballots are examples or exclusive? Director
Hunter-Havens confirmed those are exclusive for absentee-by-mail ballot return.
Hearing no further discussion, Chair Carter called for the vote. Motion carried
unanimously.
Chair Carter moved to take a five-minute recess. Member Bryan asked the purpose.
Chair Carter said it would provide a chance to refresh and return to the previous
discussion about precinct officials. Member Bryan noted he was seeing other members
shaking their heads. Member Kemp said he has a motion that, he believes, will be
received favorably. Chair Carter withdrew his motion for a brief recess.
Member Kemp said there were four names brought forward by the chair of the
Democratic Party for precincts CF02, Irving Trust; H12, Edward Beckes; W16, Alex
Lee; and W17, Veronica McLaurin Brown. He moved approval of those names for
appointment, second by Member Hunter. He stated he believed all are non-resident
transfers. Chair Carter noted that Alex Lee has already been appointed as judge of W16.
and called for any discussion. Secretary Miller requested a few minutes to review the
nominees and see who has already been appointed to serve in those precincts. These
names were submitted to the August 17 meeting, but the Board has not yet considered
them for appointment because they are non-resident transfers. Member Kemp noted
these are Democrats who will serve in precincts where there are currently no Democratic
judges appointed. He is interested in appointing Democrats instead of unaffiliated judges
to fill these vacant positions. Member Hunter clarified that her second to the motion is
based on these names being Democrats but not to displace unaffiliated people from
appointment. That is not relevant for purposes of appointing these officials. Secretary
Miller asked for a sense of the Board for adding to that list Samantha Nguyen as judge in
W26 and Crystal Gail Wolfe as judge in FP06, both names nominated by the chair of the
Republican Party to fill vacant positions in those precincts. Seeing agreement from the
other members, Member Kemp agreed to revise his motion to appoint Irving Trust to
CF02; Edward Beckes to H12; Veronica McLaurin Brown to W16; Crystal Gail Wolfe to
FP06; and Samantha Nguyen to W26, second by Secretary Miller. Hearing no further
discussion, Chair Carter called for the votes. Motion carried unanimously.
Board Minutes – 09/14/2021
Board members again declined Chair Carter’s suggestion for a brief recess. [Chair Carter
left the meeting, handing the gavel to Secretary Miller.]
Member Hunter said that appointments in H10, W13, and W27 remain. Secretary Miller
asked the Director whether any of these precincts offer staffing challenges or situations
for special considerations? Precinct H10 has many registered voters and requires a strong
chief judge to assure high quality service to the voters. So far, no resident officials have
stepped forward or been identified. The nominee for chief judge, Karl Ricanek III, is a
transfer nominated for his strong skill set and experience. W13 is across from UNCW
and presents similar challenges as W24 which is on the campus. Voters get confused
between the two polling places, generating a higher number of provisional voters. The
precinct also has a small pool to draw from for precinct officials. W27 traditionally has
higher election day turnout, calling for a chief judge and judges with more service history
and strong administrative and technical skills to serve the volume of voters. [Chair
Carter returned to the meeting and assumed the gavel.] Secretary Miller asked whether
H10 and W13 are more challenging than W27. The Director noted that she only
recommends appoint of a non-resident transfer chief judge in situations where the
experienced judges are not willing or lack the service history to take on the duties of chief
judge. These positions require strong precinct management and leadership skills.
Member Kemp would like to nominate the nominees of the Republican Party chair for
these open positions. Mr. Rothlein has information to share regarding their
qualifications. Chair Carter asked if there was any further discussion from the Board
members before hearing from Mr. Rothlein. Member Hunter said she would not favor
replacing the resident nominee for W27 with someone who does not have prior
experience. The nominee meets the criteria for appointment. Chair Carter clarified that
there is no motion on the floor and the Board is in general discussion. Secretary Miller
wanted to continue the discussion as he believes the Board to moving toward a solution.
Secretary Miller said he would be willing to compromise on the three positions, with
great reservations, on H10 and W13, while staying with the staff recommendation for
W27. After discussion about hearing from the Republican Party representative, Chair
Carter called on Julius Rothlein to address the Board. He noted that the names suggested
worked the previous election cycle and he is trying to build on that capacity. Thomas
Newton, previously nominated as a judge in W24, has 37 years of national account sales
experience and served as a poll observer in 2020. Chair Carter deferred any further
comment from Mr. Rothlein to allow further Board discussion.
Secretary Miller moved to appoint Kathryn Lawson as judge in W27; Thomas Morris as
chief judge in W13; and Sarah Giachino as chief judge in H10, second by Chair Carter.
The Chair called for any discussion, noting that Secretary Miller has offered a
compromise that reflects a change from his earlier position, which is why he seconded
the motion and plans to vote for it. Member Hunter said the challenge for her is the
motion is to appoint two people as chief judges who have no prior election experience.
Director Hunter-Havens selected the people she nominated for their prior election
experience. Her hesitation is the lack of prior experience, not party affiliation.
Experience is important in the two precincts under consideration. Member Bryan said the
officials are not on an island. Director Hunter-Havens said there is a dedicated call center
Board Minutes – 09/14/2021
for the officials to report any difficulties they encounter during the day, such as
equipment failures. They receive training to report any incidents they encounter. IT staff
are standing by to assist with technology either by phone or on site. Chief judge is such a
critical role that selection considers prior election experience as well as information
gathered through information sessions and e-skills assessment, and having a working
relationship. Member Bryan said we should understand that there is training and
accessibility. Chair Carter said we are not throwing them into the 2022 general election,
this is a municipal election with less stress and lower voter turnout. Secretary Miller said
that he understands and shares Member Hunter’s concerns, but the Director’s information
allays those concerns somewhat. The Board is looking at appointing these chief judges
as opposed to no chief judges, knowing that there will be training, and this is a municipal
election cycle with potential for wide utilization of three One Stop sites which takes some
of the pressure off the election day polling places. Without minimizing those concerns,
he is willing to accept the risk, considering the alternative. Hearing no further discussion,
Chair Carter called for the vote. Chair Carter, Secretary Miller, Members Bryan and
Kemp voted aye; Member Hunter voted no. Motion failed for lack of a unanimous vote
of all the members.
Member Hunter moved approval of the staff recommendations: Karl Ricanek III for H10
chief judge; Margaret Davit for W13 chief judge; and Kathryn Lawson for W27 judge,
second by Secretary Miller. Hearing no discussion, Chair Carter called for the vote.
Secretary Miller and Member Hunter voted aye; Chair Carter, Members Bryan and Kemp
voted no. Motion failed for lack of a unanimous vote of all the members.
Member Bryan said he appreciated everyone’s positions and the progress made today, but
we have reached the point that we need to adjourn this meeting. Director Hunter-Havens
brought to the Board’s attention the schedule of the absentee meetings with the first
meeting on September 28, the date set by statute. Absentee-by-mail ballots will not be
mailed until October 4, meaning there will be no returned absentee-by-mail applications
to review on September 28. She asked whether the Board would like to cancel that
meeting so that proper notice can be given. Chair Carter asked if the Board could discuss
precinct official appointments at that meeting if the proper notice is given? Director
Hunter-Havens said that date is too late to complete the on-boarding process for precinct
officials and there are many other critical functions that must be performed and take
priority. Any remaining vacancies will have to be filled with those who have completed
the on-boarding process.
Before calling for a second to Member Bryan’s motion to adjourn, is it the sense of the
Board that we have exhausted our efforts to appoint precinct officials under §163-41(c)?
Member Kemp disagreed, efforts not exhausted under the second paragraph of (c), which
we have not attempted. Member Hunter disagreed and said efforts are exhausted.
Member Bryan asked Members Kemp and Hunter if blocking each other’s attempts to put
someone in the positions is better than bending a little bit? Member Hunter rejected that
description, that her preferred position is to follow the law and that is what she is
standing by. Member Bryan asked if she is following someone else’s opinion of the law?
She said she knows how to read the statute and is following the guidance issued by the
State Board of Elections. Based on those two things, she is acting within her purview as
a Board member.
Board Minutes – 09/14/2021
Chair Carter asked Secretary Miller whether the Board’s efforts are exhausted. Secretary
Miller replied he is not able to say but feels the Board has exhausted its ability to reach
common ground, barring some breakthrough. Chair Carter addressed the same question
to Member Bryan who responded that he is not clear on what the statute means by
“exhausted”.
Chair Carter deferred calling for a second to Member Bryan’s motion to adjourn, and
instead moved that the Board declare it has exhausted its efforts to appoint precinct
officials under §163-41(c). Member Bryan asked what such a declaration would trigger?
Chair Carter responded that he believes it allows him as Chair to make appointments to
fill vacancies. Member Hunter said she is hesitant to tie the action specifically to the
section of the statute, but she agrees the Board has exhausted its ability to reach
unanimity on the last three positions. Member Kemp said he felt the Board should seek
the recommendations of the party chairman under §163-41(c), section 2, before moving
to §163-41(d). Chair Carter withdrew his motion and Member Bryan withdrew his
motion to adjourn.
Member Bryan requested that Member Kemp read the portion of the statute to which he
is referring, and Member Kemp proceeded to read from §163-41(c), second paragraph:
If, after diligently seeking to fill the positions with registered voters of the
precinct, the county board still has an insufficient number of officials for the
precinct, the county board by unanimous vote of all of its members may appoint
to the positions registered voters in other precincts in the same county who meet
the qualifications other than residence to be precinct officials in the precinct,
provided that where possible the county board shall seek and adopt the
recommendation of the county chairman of the political party affected.
Member Hunter stated her view is that the Board has done that. Both county chairs have
submitted names and we have made some movement in appointing some names and then
the remaining names have not been approved. The statute reads “where possible …
shall”. Secretary Miller asked if we have determined the meaning of “the party
affected”? It seems that it is the Democratic party that is affected, following the tradition
that the chief judge reflects the party of the Governor.
Chair Carter asked Member Kemp if he is contending that there are names that have been
submitted that the Board has not considered yet? Member Kemp responded that he is
contending that the Board has not satisfied the second sentence of the second paragraph
of §163-41 (c). The Board must do that before moving on to (d).
Chair Carter called on Member Kemp to state his motion. Member Kemp moved to
follow the recommendations of the Republican Party chair which the Board requested, to
appoint as non-resident transfers Sarah Giachino as H10 chief judge; Tom Morris as W13
chief judge; and Dorothy Playforth as W27 judge, second by Member Bryan. Chair
Carter called for any discussion.
Board Minutes – 09/14/2021
Secretary Miller noted that in W13, Margaret Davit, as a Democratic appointee, indicates
that the Democratic Party is the affected party. He has not heard how we are defining
“affected party.” In H10, Karl Ricanek III is an unaffiliated appointee who has been
denied, so there is no affected party chair to consult. The same for Kathryn Lawson in
W27, also unaffiliated. How is the Republican party the “affected party” here when the
Board has turned down two unaffiliated nominations and one Democratic nomination for
appointment? Chair Carter said no one can offer more than a guess about what is meant
by “affected party”. It all falls under the provision that the Board may appoint precinct
officials who were not recommended by one of the party chairs. Member Kemp noted
that the Director asked both party chairs to submit their recommendations which means
the Board must vote on those names. He has not seen a list from the Democratic Party
chair. The Republican Party chair’s list was received by email to the Board days ago.
Chair Carter said the Democratic Party chair’s list was received today, although some of
the names have been submitted previously. Member Kemp asked if some of those names
have been approved? Chair Carter said some have been. Member Bryan said that is the
point, that the Board has tried to approve some names from the Democratic list without
success. Member Hunter said that the Board has also attempted to approve some names
from the Republican list without success. Chair Carter said that all have made efforts and
made progress. No one has gotten everything that they wanted and that is frustrating, and
we have been here for three hours and that is frustrating. Member Kemp said that, if the
motion passes, they are appointed. If the motion fails, we are either disagreeing on the
names or disagreeing where we are in the process. If we do not agree where we are in the
process, we cannot move on. This motion attempts to state where we are in the process.
Member Hunter said the motion is trying to force the Board to agree on something where
there is no agreement. Focusing on the sequencing remains unclear to her.
Hearing no further discussion, Chair Carter called for the vote. Chair Carter and
Members Bryan and Kemp voted aye; Secretary Miller and Member Hunter voted no.
Motion failed for lack of a unanimous vote of all the members.
Chair Carter moved that the Board resolve that it has exhausted its efforts to appoint
precinct officials under §163-41(c), second by Member Kemp. Secretary Miller said that
he can agree that the Board has exhausted its efforts but is not clear on the meaning of
tying it to the referenced part of the statute. Chair Carter withdrew his motion and made
a new motion. He moved that the Board has exhausted its efforts to appoint precinct
officials, second by Member Hunter. Member Kemp pointed out that the statute
addresses both precinct officials and precinct assistants as defined in §163-41(b). In
response, Chair Carter again withdrew the previous motion and moved that the Board has
exhausted its efforts to appoint chief judges and judges, second by Secretary Miller.
Motion carried unanimously.
Member Kemp said this finding allows the Chair to begin appointing precinct judges
according to §163-41(d). Chair Carter acknowledged that interpretation may be right but
has not studied subsection (d) yet and does not have a final opinion on that.
Member Kemp moved that, where precincts do not currently have a Republican
appointed as judge, identify those slots as Republican slots so that the Chair will seek to
fill those positions with Republican appointees before considering Unaffiliated
Board Minutes – 09/14/2021
appointees, second by Member Bryan. Chair Carter opened the discussion by saying he
does not support the motion at this time as he does not want to be pinned down, but also
will not rule it out. He wants to study the statute, get other input, and then proceed as he
finds appropriate. Member Hunter requested the Chair seek the guidance of the State
Board of Elections regarding next steps, what the Board is required to do by law, and
what the proper procedure is to carry out the next steps. Chair Carter agreed that would
be appropriate and he will seek that guidance, but he will not commit to following that
guidance until he sees it.
Member Bryan said that seeking balance fits the broader goals and he does not want to
abandon the progress made so far. Chair Carter invited the Board members to text him if
they have further thoughts over the next few days.
Member Kemp said that it is inappropriate to designate a vacancy as Unaffiliated because
it is not a party, it is a voter status. Subsection (d) talks about parties, not voter status. If
the Chair appoints an Unaffiliated voter to a position prior to consulting with the county
chair of the Republican party for his recommendation, that appointment would be out of
order and should not be accepted by the staff. Chair Carter acknowledged that Member
Kemp has been right about a lot of what he has brought to the Chair’s attention over the
past month and will weigh his input carefully.
Hearing no further discussion, Chair Carter called the vote. Member Kemp voted aye;
Chair Carter, Secretary Miller, Members Bryan and Hunter voted no. Motion fails for
lack of a majority.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Chair Carter called on Director Hunter-Havens for any general discussion. The Director
reported that, due to the construction at the Government Center, staff will be unable to
conduct testing in Suite 38 as planned due to hazards while the walls are going in. That
wing of the building is closed during this phase of construction. Voting equipment testing
will begin next week, will take about two and a half weeks, and use the Paynter Room
adjacent to the Board office. Once testing is completed, the equipment will be moved
back to the warehouse at the Government Center for secure storage and distribution from
there when polling places are set up. There will be a sectioned-off area where observers
may watch the process while staff maintains both physical and electronic security.
Director Hunter-Havens asked if the Board has decided whether to cancel the September
28 meeting, so that proper notice of the meeting schedule change can be given? Member
Hunter moved to cancel the September 28 meeting, second by Member Bryan. Chair
Carter called for any discussion. Member Kemp asked when would the Board appoint
precinct assistants to the various precincts? Chair Carter asked if the Board could take up
that matter after acting on the motion on the floor. Member Hunter asked the Director
whether she or the Board makes those appointments? Traditionally county boards of
election staff across the state make those appointments, following the same statutory
requirements for chief judges and judges, due to administrative deadlines. Applications
are welcome, with or without party recommendations, we on-board as many as we can to
fill vacancies that occur during One Stop voting or leading up to Election Day. Tuesday,
Board Minutes – 09/14/2021
September 21, is the cut-off date for receiving applications with the last information
session for applicants on September 28. Training begins October 4. We cannot continue
to push the administrative process beyond these deadlines and meet all the requirements
to make the appointments, to conduct required information sessions, to perform required
skill assessments, and to coordinate with the County Human Resources department to
comply with employment and payroll procedures.
Chair Carter acknowledged the time pressures and ruled the question not relevant to the
motion on the floor. Member Kemp said the question is relevant to the motion because
the Board may need to meet on September 28 to consider precinct assistant appointments.
Chair Carter asked the Director if she had any further comments. Director Hunter-
Havens said the staff will administratively be unable to on-board applicants and move
forward with training the assistants and One Stop officials effectively for this election.
Chair Carter asked if the Board must take action to approve that delegation, or is it more
of a standing delegation? Director Hunter-Havens said it is a standing administrative
delegation. One Stop officials and precinct assistants serve only from election to
election, not a set term. The party chairs are welcome to submit or encourage people to
submit applications for these positions. In larger elections deadlines must be set two
months out to handle the volume, to get everyone on-board, through training and through
the Human Resources procedures.
Member Kemp read a portion of §163-42 (b) to the Board:
The chairman of each political party in the county shall have the right to
recommend from three to 10 registered voters in each precinct for appointment as
precinct assistants in that precinct. If the recommendations are received by it no
later than the thirtieth day prior to the primary or election, the board shall make
appointments of the precinct assistants for each precinct from the names thus
recommended….
Creating an administrative bypass by letting the deadline get too close is an inappropriate
solution to having the county Republican Party chair appoint Republican precinct
officials in predominantly Democratic judge precincts. Chair Carter said Member Kemp
might be right, but from the section of the statute he just read, there is an important
distinction to be made for this election: this is not a primary election. It is a municipal
election, and both of those are different from a general election. He is not prepared to
render an opinion or intelligently discuss §163-42. He called on Member Hunter for her
discussion. This item is not on the agenda for this meeting and certainly Board members
can add items to the agenda. But this item is not before the Board today and was not
added before the agenda was adopted. Member Kemp noted the Board has not had the
General Discussion item yet. Chair Carter said the discussion is tied into the motion to
cancel the meeting. While it has opened a can of worms, it is not out of order. Chair
Carter called on Member Kemp for any further discussion. Member Kemp said his point
is that, if the Board does not have an opportunity to appoint Republican judges, we must
have the opportunity to appoint Republican precinct assistants.
Chair Carter called for any further discussion. Member Bryan asked whether both parties
could recommend precinct assistants? Chair Carter suggested that, with representatives
Board Minutes – 09/14/2021
of both parties present here, if they have recommendations, to email names to Director
Hunter-Havens. We can consider them for either this election or the March 2022
primary. Director Hunter-Havens said it would be more helpful if anyone who wants to
serve as an election official to complete the precinct official application on the county
Board’s website. Applications will be accepted through Tuesday, September 21, but after
that we do not have the capacity to reach out to interested individuals.
Hearing no further discussion, Chair Carter called the vote. Chair Carter, Secretary
Miller, Members Bryan and Hunter voted aye; Member Kemp voted no. Motion carried.
Chair Carter called for any further business to come before the Board. Hearing none, he
called for a motion to adjourn.
ADJOURNMENT
Member Hunter moved that the meeting be adjourned at 8:42 p.m., second by Secretary
Miller. Motion carried unanimously.
The next Board meeting is scheduled to be held on Tuesday, October 5, 2021, at
5:00 p.m., at the Board of Elections office, Long Leaf Room, 1241A Military Cutoff
Road, Wilmington, NC.
APPROVED BY: RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
_______________________________ _____________________________
DERRICK R. MILLER RAE HUNTER-HAVENS
SECRETARY ELECTIONS DIRECTOR
Board Minutes –10/05/2021
SPECIAL MEETING
New Hanover County Board of Elections
October 5, 2021
5:00 PM
ATTENDANCE
Members: Oliver Carter III, Chair
Derrick R. Miller, Secretary
Russ C. Bryan, Member
Lyana G. Hunter, Member
Bruce Kemp, Member
Staff: Rae Hunter-Havens, Executive Director
Caroline Dawkins, Deputy Director
Chris Tisbert, Election Systems Specialist
Joan Geiszler-Ludlum, Administrative Technician
Visitors: Sheryl Kelly, Assistant County Manager
Public Attendees – In Person: Bob Gatewood; Gail Collier; Janet M. Heid; Loraine
Buker, League of Women Voters – Lower Cape Fear; Becky
Jaskey; John Jaskey; Stephanie Fortunato; Matthew Heiser; Susan
Kreamer; Tom Kreamer; Annie Thi, YouCanVote.
Public Attendees - Virtual attendees: Julius Rothlein, NHC GOP; Jody Kemp.
OPENING
Chair Carter called the meeting to order at 5:04 p.m. The New Hanover County Board of
Elections meeting was held in the Board of Elections office, Long Leaf Room, 1241A
Military Cutoff Road, Wilmington, NC. All members were present.
Chair Carter reminded the attendees that face masks are required under the mask mandate
in effect in New Hanover County. This meeting is being livestreamed and recorded.
AGENDA
Member Kemp moved adoption of the agenda as submitted, second by Member Hunter.
Motion carried unanimously.
Board Minutes –10/05/2021
PUBLIC COMMENT AND QUESTION
Chair Carter called on the public in-person attendees for their comments or questions,
limited to two minutes each. He asked speakers to give their name before speaking.
John Jaskey expressed his concerns about election integrity, raising a need to analyze the
results of the 2020 election. He presented copies of three documents regarding forensic
audits. Mr. Jaskey requested that Board order a formal forensic audit and preserve
election records from the 2020 Presidential Election for that purpose.
Matthew Heiser asked the Board for assurance that the public will have access to watch
the counting of the vote on Election Day, citing NCGS §163-182.2. While he could not
give that assurance at this time, Chair Carter could assure that this Board is committed to
following the North Carolina General Statutes, North Carolina Administrative Code, and
guidance from the State Board of Elections. He will provide clarity on public access to
observe counting of ballots at a later time.
Stephanie Fortunato, precinct chair for M04, noted the pandemic-related expanded
requirements for absentee voting put in place for the 2020 election, including expanded
early voting, relaxed voter identification, and the extended canvass period for absentee-
by-mail ballots without legislative action. She has concerns regarding cleaning up voter
rolls to remove deceased, ineligible and inactive voters; securing chain of custody for
returned absentee ballots; and allowing bipartisan observers in polling places during
opening and closing the polls. She offered to send her statement to the Board members
and was directed where to find their email addresses.
An unidentified in-person attendee asked Chair Carter for further clarification of his
comment about bi-partisan teams of precinct officials. He explained that in all but two
precincts, one Democrat and one Republican official are appointed. The exceptions
include Unaffiliated voters as allowed by statute. There cannot be three judges of the
same political party by statute.
Becky Jaskey asked if the appointments are publicly available. Chair Carter responded
that the names are public information and are available on the NHC Board of Elections
website. She requested a full forensic audit of the results of the 2020 election to instill
trust in the process, and asked the Board to hold a special meeting to begin the process.
Chair Carter said the Board will hold the canvass of the 2021 Municipal Election on
November 9 which is open to the public. Director Hunter-Havens said the absentee
ballots would be counted on Election Day at 2:00 p.m. The meeting is open to the public
and will be live-streamed also. A special meeting will be held on November 8 where the
Board will review the provisional ballots, and any absentee ballots postmarked by
Election Day and received not later than November 5, in preparation for the final canvass
the next day. Another learning opportunity is to serve as an observer appointed by one of
the political parties.
Susan Kreamer said she went through training today as a laptop operator and found the
elections process to be far more secure than she had thought. She had two questions: are
Board Minutes –10/05/2021
mail-in ballots mailed only to voters who request them (yes), and are voting machines
connected to the internet (no).
Seeing and hearing no other public attendees wishing to comment, Chair Carter closed
the Public Comment session.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Chair Carter opened the General Discussion of other election-related matters. He notified
the Board of his Order, dated September 26, 2021, appointing Anne Randall as Judge in
Precinct W13 to fill a vacant position arising from the death of the previous appointee,
effective September 27, 2021 at 4:00 p.m., pursuant to NCGS §163-41(d). Eight chief
judge and judge positions remain to be filled. Appointees serve until their successors are
appointed. Member Kemp asked whether Ms. Randall is a resident or non-resident of
W13? Chair Carter said she is a non-resident transfer.
Seven vacant appointments remain which will be addressed under New Business.
Member Kemp asked about the timing and qualification of appointment of precinct
assistants. By statute this is a Board responsibility. Chair Carter called on Director
Hunter-Havens to review the process.
The Director said that the Board appoints chief judges and judges for two-year terms in
odd-numbered years. County directors assign precinct assistants to serve election to
election. They are not appointed by the Board because of high turnover and there are too
many moving parts to the process. The political parties are encouraged to submit names
and the staff recruits applicants through the elections website. Applications are due from
four to eight weeks before Election Day to manage all aspects of the on-boarding,
assessment, selection, training, and assignment processes. Statutory requirements for
party affiliation representation are followed, along with consideration of prior experience,
administrative skills, formation of functional teams, and scheduling for training. Member
Hunter asked is this not one of the duties the Board has delegated to the Director? The
Director said that traditionally county boards delegate the assignment of precinct
assistants and filling vacancies among chief judges and judges to the Director.
Director Hunter-Havens informed the Board of the September 4 State Board legal update
that observers will be allowed during municipal elections going forward. She has
forwarded the guidelines and deadlines to the county party chairs.
NEW BUSINESS
a. Review of Absentee Ballot Applications
Chair Carter called on Director Hunter-Havens for her report.
The Board received two Uniformed and Overseas Civilian Absentee Voting Act
(UOCAVA) ballots. UOCAVA voters are permitted to submit their ballot with a
required signed attestation by email or through the State Board portal or by regular mail.
The voted ballot is printed and placed in the absentee envelope and the attestation is
Board Minutes –10/05/2021
attached to the envelope. The Board circulated and reviewed the two UOCAVA ballots.
Upon approval, the UOCAVA ballots will be secured to be duplicated and scanned at a
subsequent Board meeting in preparation for counting on Election Day. A first mailing
of approximately 300 absentee ballots have been requested and sent to date, compared to
18,000 in 2020.
Member Kemp moved that two UOCAVA absentee ballot applications be approved, in
accordance with NCGS §§163-229 (b) and 163-230.1 (e) (2020), second by Member
Bryan. Motion carried unanimously.
b. Chief Judge/Judge Substitutions to Fill Vacancies for the 2021 Municipal
Election Only
Chair Carter called on the Director for her report.
Leading up to Election Day, the appointed chief judges and judges may become
unavailable to serve. In recommending substitutes for unavailable appointees, the staff
follows a sequence of factors, party affiliation of the unavailable appointee first,
including contacting the party chair for assistance as needed; contacting on-boarded
officials to discern interest in serving; precinct of residence; and skill sets and knowledge
base for high quality and high functioning teams. There are eight substitutions
recommended. Deputy Director Dawkins confirmed that seven of the eight
recommendations are current appointed officials in precincts where municipal voting is
not taking place, or have served in the role in previous elections. One is a new official
recommended to get election experience. All have agreed to serve in the assigned
position. In six precincts, balance between Democrat and Republican appointees is
maintained, and in two the balance will be party and Unaffiliated officials with assistants
appointed to achieve bipartisan teams. In no case are all three officials of the same party.
Chair Carter called for any discussion by the Board. Member Kemp noted that in two
precincts, H10 and W27, an Unaffiliated substitute is replacing a Republican appointed
official. The county Republican Party has previously submitted names for these
positions, and he would like the Board to consider those Republican nominees instead of
Unaffiliated officials. Deputy Director Dawkins said that those names were reviewed for
any who lived in the precinct needing a substitute and any new officials who had
completed the on-boarding process. She reached out to assigned assistants of the same
party affiliation to identify someone willing to serve. After those officials declined to
serve or did not return calls, she moved on to Unaffiliated assistants. The list before the
Board reflects the staff assessment that these are the right people to serve for this election
and they have agreed to serve in this capacity.
Chair Carter asked Deputy Director Dawkins to review the number of precinct official
applications received in the past month and number of training and information sessions.
She has reviewed about 60 applications received due to the additional efforts of both
parties over the past month. She reached out to all applicants who applied by September
21. All applicants received an email inviting them to sign up for information sessions,
which are scheduled for three session times on one or two days each week. Upon
completing the information session, an applicant receives two emails, one to complete an
Board Minutes –10/05/2021
e-skills assessment of comfort with technology use which does not eliminate that
applicant from consideration. The second follow-up email outlines the next steps the
applicant must complete to become eligible to work an election, consisting of required
HR forms (W-4, NC-4 and direct deposit) and a visit to HR to complete the I9 process to
confirm eligibility to work in North Carolina. Once completed, the applicant is contacted
to determine interest and availability to work in this election. Of the additional
applications received, 45 signed up for an information session. Anyone who did not
complete the HR process was sent a reminder email that the deadline to complete the
process was 11:00 a.m. on October 4. Administrative deadlines are necessary as the on-
boarding process must occur alongside training schedules and the dynamic assignment
process to get officials trained and scheduled to work both One Stop early voting and
Election Day, while backfilling positions where officials have become unavailable.
Keeping in mind that these are not Board appointments but rather staff-initiated
administrative assignments, Secretary Miller moved to support the administrative
substitutions for the listed eight precincts for the 2021 Municipal Election only, second
by Member Hunter.
Member Kemp noted that the agenda packet cites §163-41 as authority for this
administrative action and asked which paragraph applies? Chair Carter said the cited
section does not explicitly mention substitute appointments, but his review of about three
dozen court decisions suggests that the courts frequently defer to the historical practices
of the county board of elections that are consistently followed over time.
Member Kemp pointed out that the list shows the chief judge position in H10 and judge
position in W27 as vacant, which means that the Chair can make those appointments by
statute. He noted that he relied on the Chair’s resolution in making several appointments
at the last Board meeting, voting to appoint several Democrat judges but two of the
Republicans appearing in that resolution were not appointed. He moved to amend the
motion to remove H10 and W27 substitutions from consideration so that the Chair can
make those appointments as authorized in §163-41(d). Secretary Miller seconded the
motion to amend for purposes of discussion.
Chair Carter said it may be misleading that these two substitutions are labelled “vacant”
when in previous Board discussion we learned that the positions are not vacant. Director
Hunter-Havens said that the 2019 appointees to the two positions in question did not
confirm their availability to serve in this election, but are otherwise willing to continue
serving, making these temporary vacancies. Chair Carter said he had worked with
Member Kemp before the previous meeting to draw up the resolution he presented to fill
several remaining appointments. Member Kemp thought going into that meeting that all
members were on Board with those appointments and that was not the case. He had not
circled back with Member Kemp after his one-on-one discussions with the other Board
members to convey that everyone was not on board. He expressed his regret that he did
not catch that misunderstanding earlier and did not get everyone on the same page before
moving forward. He wants to take the question of when the Chair is authorized to make
appointments under advisement.
Board Minutes –10/05/2021
Member Hunter said from the Board’s previous votes she thought the positions were
clear. Coming into the last meeting it may be possible to have one impression, but the
discussion made it clear where everyone stood. Her question is why the Board is having
this discussion when the assignments are already made? Revisiting the matter is an
unproductive use of the Board’s time. The positions were clear from the vote, some
compromises were made and some were not.
Chair Carter agreed that the previous meeting discussion was candid. The Open
Meetings law restricts how the Board may communicate outside of meetings and there
are good reasons for those restrictions.
Member Bryan asked Director Hunter-Havens whether Board affirmation is required?
She said that she prefers to have the Board’s unanimous support as has been given in the
past, but it is not required to move forward administratively. All polling places are
required to have a chief judge and judges as directed by §163-41 which is why it is cited
as support, not for the process of appointment but for the fact that these positions are
required by statute.
Chair Carter said that he is opposed to the amendment. He prefers to give his support to
all eight substitute assignments even if they may not have been his first choice to serve in
these positions. To the extent that any of these assignments results in one of the parties
not being represented, he would encourage both political parties, and particularly any
party that may feel it is disadvantaged by the assignment, to assign observers in that
precinct.
Member Bryan said he initially was in the same place as Member Kemp but quickly
realized everyone was not on the same page. He is satisfied that the administrative
assignments for these precincts provide representation for both parties. He is also
satisfied based on his previous experience that irregularities at the polls are almost non-
existent.
Secretary Miller said he planned to vote against the motion to amend and called the
question on the amendment. He explained that a yes vote on the amendment changes the
main motion to support the staff substitutions of six instead of eight names under
consideration, a no vote keeps the main motion as a vote of support on all eight names.
Member Kemp voted aye; Chair Carter, Secretary Miller, Members Bryan and Hunter
voted no. Motion failed for lack of a majority.
Member Kemp offered a substitute motion to remove the H10 chief judge and the W27
judge so that the Chair can appointment Republican replacements for the remainder of
the terms under §163-41(d). Chair Carter ruled the motion out of order as this is a
temporary substitution, not filling a vacancy, and there is a different motion on the floor.
Member Kemp said his motion is a procedural one, to remove and replace the incumbent
appointees who are unable to serve for this election, and appoint replacements to
complete the terms. The substitute motion was not seconded. Member Kemp stated that
he would vote no to prevent unanimous approval of the main motion. Director Hunter-
Havens reminded the Chair that a unanimous vote is not required to support the
substitutions.
Board Minutes –10/05/2021
Secretary Miller called the question on the main motion, to support the administrative
substitutions for the listed eight precincts for the 2021 Municipal Election only.
Chair Carter treated Secretary Miller’s calling the question as a motion to cut off debate,
second by Member Hunter. Chair Carter, Secretary Miller, Members Hunter and Kemp
voted aye; Member Bryan voted no. Motion carried by majority vote.
Chair Carter called the vote on the main motion. Chair Carter, Secretary Miller and
Member Hunter voted aye; Members Bryan and Kemp voted no. Motion carried by
majority vote.
Member Kemp challenged the validity of the vote. The agenda cites §163-41 as the basis
for the vote. He sees nothing in §163-41that supports this vote. He asked that his
challenge be noted in the minutes. Everything the Board does regarding appointments
under paragraph (c) requires unanimous votes, calling into question the validity of
substitute assignments by majority vote.
Director Hunter-Havens reminded the Board that this action is not appointing chief
judges and judges. These are administratively making temporary substitute assignments
under a policy followed by county boards state-wide and following the guidance of the
State Board of Elections to staff polling places with chief judges and judges as required
by statute. Chair Carter asked if the substitutes would take an oath (yes) and whether the
assignments will expire upon completion of the final canvass (yes).
Chair Carter asked Member Kemp if he wished to put his previous motion back on the
table for discussion. Member Kemp moved to remove the previously appointed H10
chief judge and the W27 judge, declaring those positions vacant, and the Chair appoint
their successors as early as tomorrow pursuant to §163-41 (d), second by Member Bryan.
Chair Carter said that §163-41 (d) provides that a vacancy arises when the appointee
resigns, dies, is removed from office, or for other cause, and requires notice to the official
under consideration for removal and an opportunity for that official to be heard. Member
Kemp said that staff have made efforts to contact the incumbents without success and
should serve as the required notice. Chair Carter said that the notice would need to be
specific notice that the board is considering removing the person from the appointed
position and give an opportunity for the person to be heard by the Board at a specific time
and date. Member Bryan said he felt the Chair may be reading too much into what notice
is required to satisfy due process for removal.
Deputy Director Dawkins said these two officials have diligently served in previous
elections. Before any steps are taken toward removing them, she would like the chance
to attempt contact with them once more to honor their prior service. She would like to
find out their intentions, whether they want to continue to serve. That effort would mean
a lot to the officials before any formal steps are taken to remove them. Then those two
precincts can be reassessed with the Board.
Chair Carter said the point that resonates with him is these officials, appointed in 2019,
have served well. The only reason removal is being considered now is that they did not
respond to an email. They have done nothing wrong. Member Hunter said she trusts the
process the staff followed to fill these positions, made necessary by the Board’s inability
Board Minutes –10/05/2021
to agree on the appointments. The Board needs to take the necessary action to get
through the municipal election when it can revisit these appointments. The objection is
the appointment of unaffiliated voters to serve but that does not disqualify them. She
agrees with Member Kemp that bipartisan representation is needed. But someone who is
registered as Unaffiliated meets the criteria to serve in these positions.
After further discussion, Member Kemp withdrew his motion to allow the eight substitute
assignments go forward and avoid delay. Member Bryan asked the party affiliation of
the 2019 appointee as chief judge in H10. Deputy Director Dawkins, noting she does not
have that information in front of her, said the usual procedure is to appoint someone of
the party of the governor, then consider someone regardless of party who is willing to
serve, their work history and the other factors.
Member Kemp asked whether the open positions in W24 and W13 have been filled.
Deputy Director Dawkins reported that temporary vacancies continue to arise in a
number of precincts, but she has not yet identified temporary replacements to present to
the Board today. This is a daily task at this point. Member Kemp said the Board could
declare all the unfilled positions vacant, allowing the Chair to make the appointments as
soon as tomorrow. Chair Carter said there are two schools of thought on that
appointment process, but traditionally only one of the three positions can be filled by a
non-resident following the section (d) process. That is the guidance received from the
State Board.
Secretary Miller said, based on last year’s experience, the Board will see lists of changes
to be made at every meeting up until Election Day, that is how dynamic the process is.
Procedural innovations made here, in the midst of the process, undermine stability.
Member Kemp said he is trying to follow the code and is not asking for process changes.
ADJOURNMENT
Member Hunter moved that the meeting be adjourned at 6:40 p.m., second by Member
Kemp. Motion carried unanimously.
The next Board meeting is scheduled to be held on October 12, 2021, at 5:00 p.m.
APPROVED BY: RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY:
__________________________ _________________________________
DERRICK R. MILLER RAE HUNTER-HAVENS
SECRETARY ELECTIONS DIRECTOR
Board Minutes – 10/12/2021
SPECIAL MEETING
New Hanover County Board of Elections
October 12, 2021
5:00 PM
ATTENDANCE
Members: Oliver Carter III, Chair
Derrick R. Miller, Secretary
Russ C. Bryan, Member
Lyana G. Hunter, Member
Bruce Kemp, Member
Staff: Rae Hunter-Havens, Executive Director
Caroline Dawkins, Deputy Director
Chris Tisbert, Election Systems Specialist
Joan Geiszler-Ludlum, Administrative Technician
Visitors: Sheryl Kelly, Assistant County Manager
Public Attendees – In Person: Loraine Buker, League of Women Voters – Lower Cape
Fear; Gail Collier; unreadable name; Julius Rothlein, NHC GOP;
Matthew Emborsky, NHC GOP; Mike Fox; Claudia Campese;
Elizabeth Richards; Susanne Werner, NHC DP; Susan Mulligan;
John Jaskey; Becky Jaskey; Matt Heiser; Matthew Morrissey.
Virtual attendees: Jeanette Koshar, AAUW; Mike (no last name); Thila Bell.
OPENING
Chair Carter called the meeting to order at 5:03 p.m. The New Hanover County Board of
Elections meeting was held in the Board of Elections office, Long Leaf Room, 1241A
Military Cutoff Road, Wilmington, NC. All members were present.
AGENDA
Member Kemp moved adoption of the agenda as submitted, second by Member Hunter.
Motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Chair Carter reminded the audience to silence their phones; thanked them for honoring
the County’s mask mandate; and notified the audience that the meeting is being recorded
Board Minutes – 10/12/2021
and live streamed.
Chair Carter called on the public in-person attendees for their comments or questions,
limited to two minutes each.
Elizabeth Richards asked when will the mask mandate be lifted? Chair Carter told her
that question is not within the jurisdiction of the Board of Elections.
Loraine Buker, League of Women Voters – Lower Cape Fear asked how observers who
are Unaffiliated may be appointed as observers, since there is no Unaffiliated
organization to make appointments. She was advised to reach out to the party chairs.
Director Hunter-Havens agreed to ask the State Board legal team for information on
options for Unaffiliated voters.
Mike Fox asked the Board to support a full forensic audit of the 2020 election. Chair
Carter distributed a copy of the statute addressing post-election audits and pointed out
that it charges the State Board of Elections with the process of auditing elections, and
there is no legal process for the county boards to authorize an audit.
Becky Jansky, noting the Board begins the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance, asked
why the Board did not also say a prayer.
Claudia Campese said she supports the Board doing a forensic audit.
Julius Rothlein, NHC GOP, asked whether voters will be required to wear masks to enter
polling places. Director Hunter-Havens said precinct officials will be required to wear
masks, but voters are requested but not required to wear masks under the current mask
mandate. Mr. Rothlein asked whether observers will be allowed to review the absentee-
by-mail return envelopes before they are accepted or tabulated, and when will that occur.
Director Hunter-Havens confirmed with the State Board legal team that absentee-by-mail
return envelopes are not public records while they contain a ballot, becoming public
records only after the envelopes are opened and ballots removed. She so notified NHC
GOP chair Knecht this afternoon. The applications approved to date will be opened and
scanned at the October 19 meeting and she will set up a time to review the redacted
container-return envelopes after that as timely as she can accommodate it.
Matthew Morrissey offered information about a forensic audit process.
Virtual attendee Jeanette Koshar, American Association of University Women, expressed
her concerns about the cost of and challenges in the process to obtain voter identification
should it be required in future elections.
Elizabeth Richards asked about observers and mask requirements for voters and election
workers. She demanded answers about when and how the mask mandate will be lifted.
Chair Carter excused her from the meeting.
Board Minutes – 10/12/2021
Matthew Emborsky endorsed conducting a forensic audit of the 2020 election.
Claudia Campese asked whether a non-municipal resident can serve as an observer in the
municipal election and why can an Unaffiliated voter vote in a primary election. Member
Bryan advised that the State party makes that decision.
Seeing and hearing no other public attendees wishing to comment, Chair Carter closed
the Public Comment session.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Chair Carter opened the General Discussion time for Board members and called on
Director Hunter-Havens for her report.
She reported that the three One Stop early voting sites are set up for opening Thursday
morning. Deputy Director Dawkins successfully contacted the two officials for H10 and
W27, as discussed last meeting, and is awaiting confirmations of their willingness to
continue serving.
Member Bryan asked whether staff had encountered any difficulties with staffing three
One Stop sites. The Director said the sites are staffed but, as with election Day officials,
the situation remains dynamic with daily changes. She maintains a pool of emergency
officials to draw on as openings occur.
Chair Carter asked, looking ahead to final canvass, what issues might arise. The Director
noted election protests, requests for recounts, and voter challenges may arise. During the
pre-canvass meeting, the Board will oversee the hand-eye sample counts, part of the
election audit process, review supplemental absentee-by-mail applications, and review
provisional ballots. The pre-canvass meeting is scheduled for November 8, the day
before canvass on November 9.
NEW BUSINESS
a. Review of Absentee Ballot Applications
Director Hunter-Havens presented 7 absentee-by-mail ballot applications for Board
review and approval or disapproval: 4 civilian with all requirements completed, 1
military, and 2 overseas absentee ballot applications meeting UOCAVA requirements for
Board approval or disapproval, in accordance with NCGS §§163-229 (b) and 163-230.1
(e) (2020). For the civilian ballots, two have voter and two witness signatures, and two
were signed by the voter and notarized. The military and overseas ballots have the
required attestation attached to the container-envelope. A bipartisan duplication team is
standing by to duplicate the military and overseas ballots which were submitted
electronically. The Director passed the container-envelopes to the Board to review while
protecting confidential information.
Member Kemp moved approval of the 7 absentee ballot applications, in accordance with
NCGS §§163-229 (b) and 163-230.1 (e) (2020), second by Secretary Miller. Motion
Board Minutes – 10/12/2021
carried unanimously. Board members signed the Absentee Meeting Ballot Certifications
for the ballots approved today and for the two overseas absentee ballots approved on
October 5.
Chair Carter reviewed the statute regarding the authority of county boards of election to
maintain order during its meetings. He advised that the Board will not tolerate
disruptions of its meetings. He moved to bar the person who disrupted this meeting from
the next meeting on October 19, second by Member Hunter. Member Kemp asked if
there is anything she might do to attend the next Board meeting. Chair Carter said that
she could return to the October 26 meeting if she addresses election-related matters and
refrains from addressing the mask policy. Secretary Miller agrees this person was out of
order and disruptive in addressing matters not germane to the Board’s agenda, but he is
more inclined to allow her to attend the next meeting if she is informed of the potential
consequences of such behavior. Member Hunter said her behavior is inexcusable and,
with her child being present, she was concerned with her unpredictable behavior. As
Board members, residents, and taxpayers, no one should be subjected to that kind of
behavior. Sheriff’s deputies will be present going forward. Member Bryan said that she
may be barred from attending in person but would still have access through the live
stream of the meeting. He has difficulty with banning her from a meeting. Hearing no
further discussion, the Chair called for the vote on the motion. Chair Carter and Member
Hunter voted aye; Secretary Miller, Members Bryan and Kemp voted no. Motion failed
for lack of a majority.
Secretary Miller moved that the Board request on-going law enforcement presence at
their meetings, at least through the final canvass, second by Member Hunter. Motion
carried unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
Member Kemp moved that the meeting be adjourned at 6:14 p.m., second by Member
Hunter. Motion carried unanimously.
The next Board meeting is scheduled to be held on October 19, 2021, at 5:00 p.m. in the
Board of Elections office, Long Leaf Room, 1241A Military Cutoff Road, Wilmington,
NC.
APPROVED BY: RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY:
__________________________ _____________________________
DERRICK R. MILLER RAE HUNTER-HAVENS
SECRETARY ELECTIONS DIRECTOR
Board Minutes – 10/19/2021
SPECIAL MEETING
New Hanover County Board of Elections
October 19, 2021
5:00 PM
ATTENDANCE
Members: Oliver Carter III, Chair
Derrick R. Miller, Secretary
Russ C. Bryan, Member
Lyana G. Hunter, Member
Bruce Kemp, Member
Staff: Rae Hunter-Havens, Executive Director
Caroline Dawkins, Deputy Director
Chris Tisbert, Elections Systems Specialist
Joan Geiszler-Ludlum, Administrative Technician
Visitors: Sheryl Kelly, Assistant County Manager
Public Attendees: Loraine Buker, League of Women Voters – Lower Cape Fear;
Matthew Emborsky; Jeanette Koshar; Susanne Werner, NHCDP;
John Jaskey; Becky Jaskey; Matt Heiser.
Virtual attendees: Julius Rothlein; Jim; Unidentified caller; Jody Kemp.
OPENING
Chair Carter called the meeting to order at 5:01 p.m. The New Hanover County Board of
Elections meeting was held in the Board of Elections office, Long Leaf Room, 1241A
Military Cutoff Road, Wilmington, NC. All members were present.
Chair Carter reminded the audience to silence all cell phones; notified the audience that
the meeting is being recorded and live streamed; and thanked them for honoring the
County’s mask mandate which remains in effect.
AGENDA
Member Hunter moved that the agenda be approved as submitted, second by Member
Kemp. Motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC COMMENT AND QUESTIONS
Chair Carter called on the public in-person attendees for their comments or questions on
Board Minutes – 10/19/2021
topics relevant to matters within the jurisdiction of the Board, limited to two minutes
each, and reminded speakers to observe proper deference and decorum toward the Board
and staff.
Virtual attendee Julius Rothlein, NHC GOP, made the following requests in the interest
of transparency:
1. Following up his previous request of October 12, when will the Republican
observers be able to review the absentee-by-mail container-return envelopes to be
reviewed at this meeting and future meetings?
2. See the chain of custody logs completed for absentee ballots returned in person at
the One Stop sites for verification of return by the voter or near relative.
3. Allow observers to enter the polling place at the same time as election officials to
observe the opening of the DS200 machines, including inspecting the emergency
bin and the blue bin to ensure they are empty.
4. Allow observers to see the opening zero tape signed by the precinct officials.
5. Allow observers an alternate location to view the DS200 during voting.
6. Confirm that all ballots placed in the emergency bin are scanned and the bin is
empty.
7. Allow observers to manually count all ballots in the DS200 at closing before
being placed and sealed in polybags, to verify the machine count.
Attendee Jeanette Koshar called for less divisiveness and finding common ground to
preserve one of the pillars of democracy, free and fair elections. Procedures for absentee
ballots require checks and balances without workarounds, such as signature comparison.
North Carolina is one of three states that require two witnesses for absentee-by-mail, a
difficult hurdle for the elderly and those who live alone.
Attendee Matthew Emborsky requested the presence of observers during tabulation and
compilation of voting results. He advocated for post-election audits to verify results,
detect fraud, and identify problems with voting systems.
Seeing and hearing no other public attendees wishing to comment, Chair Carter closed
the public comment and question period.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Chair Carter called on Director Hunter-Havens for her report on the status of the
municipal election.
The three One Stop sites processed about 1,500 voters during the first two days of early
voting. The second week is usually slower. Approximately 350 absentee-by-mail ballots
have been sent to mostly military and overseas civilian. The goal for turnaround upon
receiving a request for an absentee-by-mail ballot is the next business day.
Chair Carter asked about the scheduled pre-canvass meeting on November 8. Director
Hunter-Havens said that meeting was set for 2:00 p.m. by the Board Resolution adopted
August 17.
Board Minutes – 10/19/2021
Secretary Miller asked for an update on staffing polling places for Election Day. Director
Hunter-Havens said that process remains dynamic with officials notifying the office to
decline serving this time. Deputy Director Dawkins knows where there are holes in the
schedule and is working on replacements while also monitoring One Stop and training.
Attention is paid to the party affiliation of the person dropping out and the balance in the
precinct. Deputy Director Dawkins has reached out to the H10 and W27 2019 officials as
the Board requested in the October 5 meeting. The H10 official has agreed to work, and
response is pending from the W27 official.
In response to a question from Member Kemp, the Director confirmed that the office is
now fully staffed with the new employees continuing to learn their positions. In addition,
she has brought in seven temporary employees to support the work of the staff and office
in preparations for the election. That number will increase to about 15 for the 2022
Primary. Member Kemp asked the status of his previous request to review the chain of
custody log for in-person returned absentee-by-mail ballots. The Director has submitted
the request to the SBE legal team for guidance on procedures for shielding confidential
information to make that happen.
NEW BUSINESS
a. Review of Absentee Ballot Applications
Director Hunter-Havens presented 29 absentee-by-mail ballots for Board review and
approval or disapproval: 2 UOCAVA and 27 civilian applications are recommended for
approval today. She drew the Board’s attention to one container-return envelope where a
notary is the witness. The notary’s commission expires 8/9/2022 but the notary wrote
8/9/2021. According to NCGS §10B-67, entry of an erroneous expiration date does not
affect the notary’s certification if the notary is lawfully commissioned at the time of
affirmation. Approval of the application is recommended. The Director passed the
container-envelopes, sorted by precinct, to the Board for review.
Member Bryan asked how many deficient applications have been received? There have
been two or three which were spoiled and reissued. None have required a cure
certification so far. Member Kemp asked whether absentee-by-mail voters are required
to include a photocopy of their photo ID with their ballot? Under the current court order,
photo ID is not required. Secretary Miller asked the Director to review the process for
scanning the approved absentee applications. The approved ballots will be removed from
the container-return envelope and scanned, but not tabulated, using the DS800. The
ballots are then secured, and the scan results are stored on secure USB drives and held
securely until 2:00 p.m. on Election Day when the scanned results will be tabulated for
posting after the polls close. Once the ballots are removed and any confidential
information is redacted, party observers will be able to review the container-return
envelopes. One additional step in the process today is duplicating the UOCAVA ballots
which are received electronically and any machine-rejected ballots. A bipartisan
duplication team is standing by to do that duplication, involving a caller, a marker, and a
monitor. The Board will review both the electronic ballot and the duplicate ballot for
accuracy.
Board Minutes – 10/19/2021
At the completion of the Board’s review, Secretary Miller moved acceptance of the 29
absentee ballot applications, second by Member Bryan. Motion carried unanimously.
Director Hunter-Havens presented the electronic poll book for 1,554 absentee ballots cast
at the three One Stop early voting sites through October 18. She said, in the last step of
Election Day preparation after the One Stop sites close on the final Saturday, the One
Stop voting history updates the electronic pollbook on every laptop for Election Day and
secured for delivery to each polling site on Monday. Secretary Miller moved approval of
the One Stop electronic poll book as submitted, second by Member Hunter. Motion
carried unanimously.
Member Hunter moved to authorize the staff to prepare and scan the approved absentee
ballots, second by Member Bryan. Motion carried unanimously.
Upon conclusion of scanning, Director Hunter-Havens reported that 38 ballots were
scanned as the Board approved on October 5, October 12, and October 19.
ADJOURNMENT
Member Bryan moved that the meeting be adjourned at 6:41p.m., second by Member
Hunter. Motion carried unanimously.
The next Board meeting is scheduled to be held on October 26, 2021, at 5:00p.m. in the
Board of Elections office, Long Leaf Room, 1241A Military Cutoff Road, Wilmington,
NC.
APPROVED BY: RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY:
__________________________ _________________________________
DERRICK R. MILLER RAE HUNTER-HAVENS
SECRETARY ELECTIONS DIRECTOR
Subject:
Procedural Matter - Parameters for Public Comment Period
Applicable Statutes and/or Rules
N/A
Summary:
The Board may adopt procedural guidelines to facilitate the effective management of board meetings.
The proposed parameters for the public commend period are listed below:
1. For All Meetings
a. We start on time or as soon thereafter as a quorum is present,
b. The draft agenda will be available to the public as soon as it is available to the board,
ideally by Wednesday or Thursday of the week before,
c. The draft agenda may be published without the attachments at first so that it will be
available to the board and public sooner, and
d. The best way to provide public comment is by email to Rae plus all five board member.
2. For Regular Meetings (Dec. 14, Jan. 11, Feb. 15, and March 15)
a. the public comment period will last 20 minutes,
b. each comment will last for 2 minutes,
c. after the public comment period is over, the board will not accept additional comment
from the public,
d. except that if there is an item of new business taken up by the board that did not appear
on the agenda, an officer of each party will be allowed to give one minute of public
comment per item of new business,
e. board members may request that an item be placed on the agenda by emailing Rae and
me (and BCCing others if so desired) up to one week before each regular meeting (that is,
by the preceding Monday evening),
f. issues so submitted shall generally be listed under the agenda item for new business, but
the board may choose to take them up or not to take them up as it sees fit at the
meeting.
3. For Special Meetings
a. the special meetings should be limited to the purpose for which they are called. If they
are absentee ballot review meetings or canvass meetings, the board should stick to those
subjects.
b. if additional special meetings need to be called, there is a procedure for doing so.
c. the Feb. 15 regular meeting will be held in order to conduct regular business. The special
meeting that falls on that same day will also be held in order to attend to that specific
issue, but it will be held separately from the regular meeting so that all parties
understand that the board may transact any business before it during the regular
meeting.
Item # 2
d. at the special meetings, public comments will be limited to the purpose for which the
meetings are held.
e. the public comment period will last 10 minutes, and
f. each comment may last for 2 minutes.
Document/s Included:
NA
Board Action Required:
Board Action Required
Regular Meeting
New Hanover County Board of Elections
December 14, 2021
Subject:
Public Comment
Summary:
This is an opportunity for members of the public to provide comment on elections-related matters. Each
commenter will be limited to two minutes.
Board Action Required:
Discuss as necessary
Item # 2 Item # 3
Regular Meeting
New Hanover County Board of Elections
December 14, 2021
Subject:
Director’s Report
Summary:
a. Financial Update
The attached reports provide the Board with a budget update, including the following:
• Salaries and Benefits expended through FY21-22 5th Period (November)
• Operating Expenses expended through FY21-22 5th Period (November)
• Grand Total expended through FY20-21 5th Period (November)
b. List Maintenance Update
Per data provided from the Statewide Elections Information Management System
(SEIMS), the New Hanover County Board of Elections completed the following:
• Removed 1,642 voters from the voter registration rolls between September and
November 2021 consistent with NC Gen. Stat. §163-82.14.
• Processed 3,779 new registration forms, 1,819 duplicate registration forms, and
2,827 registration update forms between September and November 2021.
c. Candidate Filing and Redistricting Update
On Wednesday, December 8, 2021, by order of the North Carolina Supreme Court,
candidate filing for the 2022 Primary Election was suspended and the 2022 Primary
Election was rescheduled from March 8, 2022, to May 17, 2022.
Candidates who have already successfully filed their notice of candidacy with the
appropriate board of elections for the 2022 Primary Election will be deemed to have
filed for the same office under the new election schedule, unless they provide timely
notice of withdrawal of their candidacy to the board of elections during the newly -
established filing period; and except to the extent that any remedy to this matter
impacts their eligibility to hold office for which they have currently filed.
Document/s Included:
Financial Year-To-Date Budget Report 5th Period (November); NVRA Report from September to
November 2021; NVRA Visualizations Report; NVRA Report Definitions
Board Action Required:
Discuss as necessary
Item # 4
December 10, 2021 BOARD OF ELECTIONS BUDGET REPORT
SALARIES & BENEFITS FY20-21
ACTUALS
FY20-21
5TH PERIOD
ACTUALS
FY21-22
5TH PERIOD
ACTUALS
FY21-22
TRANSFERS
/ADJUSTMENTS
FY21-22
ENC/REQ
FY21-22
REVISED BUDGET
FY21-22
PERCENT USED
SALARIES 302,294.78 138,674.23 129,041.84 0.00 0.00 438,217.00 29.4%
CASUAL PART TIME SALARIES 423,477.82 12,750.14 97,231.35 0.00 8,425.00 558,889.00 18.9%
OVERTIME PAY (OTP)13,505.10 12,730.99 2,701.11 0.00 0.00 7,974.00 33.9%
SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES (FICA)29,917.00 12,181.13 10,447.56 0.00 0.00 76,890.00 13.6%
RETIREMENT-LOCAL GOVT EMPL 32,346.56 15,443.42 15,018.72 0.00 0.00 49,218.00 30.5%
GENERAL 401-K 0.00 0.00 3,077.50 0.00 0.00 25,123.00 12.2%
MEDICAL INSURANCE EXPENSE 44,352.48 16,679.82 20,444.94 0.00 0.00 80,648.00 25.4%
LONG TERM DISABILITY INSUR 595.89 268.93 201.21 0.00 0.00 754.00 26.7%
SALARIES & BENEFITS TOTAL 846,489.63 208,728.66 278,164.23 0.00 8,425.00 1,237,713.00 23.2%
OPERATING EXPENSES FY20-21
ACTUALS
FY20-21
5TH PERIOD
ACTUALS
FY21-22
5TH PERIOD
ACTUALS
FY21-22
TRANSFERS
/ADJUSTMENTS
FY21-22
ENC/REQ
FY21-22
REVISED BUDGET
FY21-22
PERCENT USED
CONTR SERVS 440,126.65 290,947.97 97,653.44 14,128.00 186,564.64 283,237.00 100.3%
RENT 4,125.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,375.00 0.0%
ADVERTISING COST 3,038.78 0.00 844.80 0.00 0.00 4,000.00 21.1%
CELLULAR EXPENSE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 456.00 0.0%
POSTAGE EXPENSE 92,317.90 45,593.52 11,718.57 -1,814.00 4,126.46 56,936.00 27.8%
M&R-EQUIPMENT 35,405.77 0.00 50,855.00 0.00 0.00 50,855.00 100.0%
PRINTING 95,308.17 3,926.33 23,343.45 -5,000.00 1,818.59 121,300.00 20.7%
PRINTER-COPIER COSTS &SUPP 10,164.75 3,324.69 581.95 -2,500.00 0.00 7,500.00 7.8%
SUPPLIES 291,535.75 35,193.28 7,655.68 -1,814.00 3,307.33 57,740.00 19.0%
SUPPLIES-COMPUTER&OTHER 1,721.16 1,721.16 1,979.50 0.00 0.00 5,928.00 33.4%
DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 470.00 0.0%
EMPLOYEE REIMBURSEMENTS 152.2 0.00 202.72 0.00 0.00 500.00 40.5%
TRAINING & TRAVEL 201.98 147.61 500.99 -3,000.00 0.00 5,500.00 9.1%
INSURANCE&BONDS 4,214.62 4,214.62 43,030.58 0.00 0.00 26,852.00 160.3%
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 978,312.73 385,069.18 238,366.68 0.00 195,817.02 623,649.00 69.6%
GRAND TOTAL 1,824,802.36 593,797.84 516,530.91 0.00 204,242.02 1,861,362.00 38.7%
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS
NVRA REPORT
Reporting Period:-9/1/2021 11/30/2021
Totals
Active 148,452
Inactive 25,732
Total Registration 174,184
REPORTING PERIOD
Registrations Approved 2,953
Total Registrations Removed 1,642
Inactive Registrations Removed 240
New Registrations
00 - No Application Source 20
01 - Public Assistance 36
02 - Disability 2
03 - Other (ESC) 0
04 - Armed Forces 0
05 - DMV 2,991
06 - Mail-in 80
07 - In-person 186
08 - Library & High School 2
09 - Spanish Language Application 0
10 - Online Registration 142
17 - Registration Drives 312
21 - Medicaid Renewal 7
96 - Temporary FWAB Registrant 0
97 - Temporary FPCA Registrant 1
3,779
Duplicates
00 - No Application Source 7
01 - Public Assistance 19
02 - Disability 0
03 - Other (ESC) 0
04 - Armed Forces 0
05 - DMV 516
06 - Mail-in 346
07 - In-person 501
08 - Library & High School 0
09 - Spanish Language Application 0
10 - Online Registration 39
17 - Registration Drives 104
21 - Medicaid Renewal 7
95 - Voter Return of NCOA 26
96 - Temporary FWAB Registrant 0
97 - Temporary FPCA Registrant 15
98 - Voter Change On Confirmation 124
vtr_nvra_stat.rpt Page 1 of 5Dec 10, 2021 11:45 am
NVRA REPORTNEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS
99 - Voter Change On Verification 115
1,819
vtr_nvra_stat.rpt Page 2 of 5Dec 10, 2021 11:45 am
NVRA REPORTNEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS
Changes of Information
00 - No Application Source 46
01 - Public Assistance 32
02 - Disability 3
03 - Other (ESC) 0
04 - Armed Forces 0
05 - DMV 1,421
06 - Mail-in 149
07 - In-person 584
08 - Library & High School 3
09 - Spanish Language Application 0
10 - Online Registration 182
17 - Registration Drives 115
21 - Medicaid Renewal 3
95 - Voter Return of NCOA 44
96 - Temporary FWAB Registrant 0
97 - Temporary FPCA Registrant 7
98 - Voter Change On Confirmation 180
99 - Voter Change On Verification 58
2,827
Verifications
# of 1st & 2nd verification mailings sent 13,376
# of 1st NCOA mailings sent 0
# of 1st verification returned undeliverable 1,973
# of verification returned by voter 165
Confirmations
# of confirmations returned by voter 296
# of confirmations sent 1,920
# of confirmations returned undeliverable 2,907
# of confirmations not returned at all 924
COUNTY STATISTICAL
Constitution 0
Democratic 51,129
Green 0
Libertarian 1,479
Republican 53,539
Unaffiliated 68,037
American Indian 378
Asian 1,322
Black 19,552
Multi-Racial 968
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 11
White 134,293
Other 3,299
Undesignated 14,361
Hispanic 3,430
Not Hispanic 118,169
Undesignated 52,585
vtr_nvra_stat.rpt Page 3 of 5Dec 10, 2021 11:45 am
NVRA REPORTNEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS
Female 85,608
Male 72,887
Undesignated 15,689
Unprocessed Registrations - Incomplete Queue
00 - No Application Source 7
01 - Public Assistance 5
02 - Disability 3
03 - Other (ESC) 0
04 - Armed Forces 0
05 - DMV 481
06 - Mail-in 28
07 - In-person 25
08 - Library & High School 0
09 - Spanish Language Application 1
10 - Online Registration 11
17 - Registration Drives 51
21 - Medicaid Renewal 14
95 - Voter Return of NCOA 24
96 - Temporary FWAB Registrant 0
97 - Temporary FPCA Registrant 1
98 - Voter Change On Confirmation 65
99 - Voter Change On Verification 12
Unprocessed Registrations - Archive Queue
00 - No Application Source 0
01 - Public Assistance 0
02 - Disability 0
03 - Other (ESC) 0
04 - Armed Forces 0
05 - DMV 0
06 - Mail-in 0
07 - In-person 0
08 - Library & High School 0
09 - Spanish Language Application 0
10 - Online Registration 0
17 - Registration Drives 0
21 - Medicaid Renewal 0
95 - Voter Return of NCOA 0
96 - Temporary FWAB Registrant 0
97 - Temporary FPCA Registrant 0
98 - Voter Change On Confirmation 0
99 - Voter Change On Verification 0
Unprocessed Registrations - Review Queue
00 - No Application Source 14
01 - Public Assistance 20
02 - Disability 1
03 - Other (ESC) 0
04 - Armed Forces 0
05 - DMV 1,030
06 - Mail-in 55
07 - In-person 36
vtr_nvra_stat.rpt Page 4 of 5Dec 10, 2021 11:45 am
NVRA REPORTNEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS
08 - Library & High School 3
09 - Spanish Language Application 0
10 - Online Registration 90
17 - Registration Drives 39
21 - Medicaid Renewal 3
96 - Temporary FWAB Registrant 0
97 - Temporary FPCA Registrant 3
vtr_nvra_stat.rpt Page 5 of 5Dec 10, 2021 11:45 am
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000
APPROVED REG
REMOVED REG
NVRA Monthly Statistics: Total Removed and Approved Registrations
Jan-20 Feb-20 Mar-20 Apr-20 May-20 Jun-20 Jul-20 Aug-20
Sep-20 Oct-20 Nov-20 Dec-20 Jan-21 Feb-21 Mar-21 Apr-21
May-21 Jun-21 July-21 Aug-21 Sep-21 Oct-21 Nov-21
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 50000
NEW DMV REG
NEW REG ALL OTHERS
DMV DUPLICATES
ALL OTHER DUPLICATES
DMV INFO CHANGE
ALL OTHER INFO CHANGE
NVRA Monthly Statistics: Voter Registrations
Jan-20 Feb-20 Mar-20 Apr-20 May-20 Jun-20 Jul-20 Aug-20 Sep-20 Oct-20 Nov-20 Dec-20
Jan-21 Feb-21 Mar-21 Apr-21 May-21 Jun-21 July-21 Aug-21 Sep-21 Oct-21 Nov-21
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000
1ST & 2ND VERIFICATIONS MAILED
1ST NCOA MAILED
UNDELIVERABLE 1ST VERFICIATION
RETURNED VERIFICATIONS
MAILED CONFIRMATIONS
RETURNED CONFIRMATIONS
UNDELIVERABLE CONFIRMATIONS
NVRA Monthly Statistics: Voter Card Mailings
Jan-20 Feb-20 Mar-20 Apr-20 May-20 Jun-20 Jul-20 Aug-20
Sep-20 Oct-20 Nov-20 Dec-20 Jan-21 Feb-21 Mar-21 Apr-21
May-21 Jun-21 July-21 Aug-21 Sep-21 Oct-21 Nov-21
NVRA
The SBE has an automated process, so there is no need to submit the report on a monthly
basis, it is available for counties that would like to run the report for informational use.
NVRA Report definitions:
Prior to reviewing the NVRA report the following items need to be considered
Statistics are based on a time period
Temporary voters are ignored in these statistics.
These are interpretations of the SEIMS NVRA reports, not anything generated
outside the SEIMS application.
See NVRA change explanation in the supplemental section.
Description Definition
Registrations
Approved
Number of verified voters during the time period. This is based
off the following verification description: ‘NEW VOTER:
VERIFIED’
Total Registrations
Removed
Number of voters that had their status changed to REMOVED
during the time period
Inactive
Registrations
Removed
Number of voters that had their status changed from INACTIVE
to REMOVED during the time period
Total Registrations
Removed
Number of voters that had their status changed to REMOVED
during the time period
New
Number of NVRA flagged new voter records by source code
during the time period. Sources ‘15’, ‘17’, ‘19’ are combined
into ‘05’, ‘07’, ‘09’ respectively. Sources ‘98’ and ‘99’ are
ignored because these are change source codes
Change
Number of NVRA flagged change voter records by source code
during the time period. Sources ‘15’, ‘17’, ‘19’ are combined
into ‘05’, ‘07’, ‘09’ respectively
Duplicate
Number of NVRA flagged duplicate voter records by source
code during the time period. Sources ‘15’, ‘17’, ‘19’ are
combined into ‘05’, ‘07’, ‘09’ respectively
Verification:# of 1st
& 2nd verification
mailings sent
This is based off the following verification descriptions: ‘NEW
VOTER: 1ST VERIFICATION PENDING’, ‘NEW VOTER: 2ND
VERIFICATION PENDING’, ‘VOTER CHG: 1ST VERIFICATION
PENDING’, ‘VOTER CHG: 1ST VERIFICATION PENDING’, ‘LIST
MAINT: 1ST VERIFICATION PENDING’
Verification:# of 1st
verification returned
undeliverable
Number of 1st verification mailings returned undeliverable to
the county during the time period. This is based off the
following verification descriptions: ‘NEW VOTER: ADDR
CONFIRMATION TO FWD ADDR (PRIOR TO MAILING)’, ‘NEW
VOTER: 2ND VERIFICATION (PRIOR TO MAILING)’, ‘VOTER
CHG: ADDR CONFIRMATION TO FWD ADDR (PRIOR TO
MAILING)’, ‘VOTER CHG: ADDR CONFIRMATION TO OLD ADDR
(PRIOR TO MAILING)
Verification:# of
verification returned
by voter
Number of verifications returned to the county by the voter
during the time period. This is based off of source code ‘99’
changes
Confirmation:# of
confirmations
returned by voter
Number of verifications returned to the county by the voter
during the time period. This is based off of source code ‘98’
changes
Confirmation:# of
confirmations sent
Number of verifications returned to the county by the voter
during the time period. This is based off of source code ‘98’
changes
Confirmation:# of
confirmations
returned
undeliverable
Number of confirmation mailings returned undeliverable to
the county during the time period. This is based off the reason
changes to ‘CONFIRMATION RETURNED UNDELIVERABLE’
Confirmation:# of
confirmations not
returned at all
Number of confirmation mailings not returned to the county at
all during the time period. This is based off the reason changes
to ‘CONFIRMATION NOT RETURNED’
Supplemental Explanation – NVRA Change/Duplicate Description
For 1/7/2012 forward:
NOTE: An NVRA Voter Change is marked if one of the following fields is changed (with
a non-administrative change).
Name
Mailing Address
Birth Date
Party
Residential Address
NOTE: An NVRA Duplicate is marked if a voter change occurs but was not one of the
fields indicated above to represent an NVRA change.
Prior to 1/7/2012:
NOTE: An NVRA Voter Change is marked if any of the fields below are updated for a
voter.
Drivers license
Gender
Confidential Flag
Race
Party
Precinct
Mailing Address
Status
Municipality
Phone number
Name
Ward
Birth date
Residential Address
SSN
NOTE: An NVRA Duplicate is flagged if none of the above occur, but one of the
following fields are changed:
Reason
Registration date
Source
Application date
Comments
Language
Regular Meeting
New Hanover County Board of Elections
December 14, 2021
Subject:
Adoption of Regular Meeting Schedule
Applicable Statutes and/or Rules
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-318.12(a)
Summary:
By statute, the Board may adopt a schedule of regular business meetings. The schedule implemented by
this board in 2021 called for regular business meetings on the Tuesday following the second Monday of
each month at 5:15 PM. Also included on the proposed regular meeting calendar are special meetings.
Board members are required to attend special meetings, in accordance with Chapter 163 of the NC
General Statutes, to review absentee ballot applications, count approved absentee ballots, and conduct
the county canvass.
Document/s Included:
2022 Schedule of Meetings; 2022 Board of Elections Calendar
Board Action Required:
Board Action Required
Item # 5a
NOTICE OF MEETINGS
In accordance with N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-318.12(a), the New Hanover County Board of Elections will meet on
the Tuesday following the second Monday of each month at 5:15 PM unless otherwise noted on the schedule
below. All meetings are held at 1241 A Military Cutoff Road, Wilmington, NC 28405, unless otherwise noted in
the board meeting notice. The schedule for all meetings in 2022 is as follows:
Date Type Time Purpose
1/ 11/ 2022 Regular 5:15 P.M. Conduct business as needed
2/ 15/ 2022 Regular 5:15 PM Conduct business as needed
3/ 15/ 2022 Regular 5:15 PM Conduct business as needed
4/ 12/ 2022 *Special 5:00 PM Absentee Review Meeting
4/ 19/ 2022 Special 5:00 PM Absentee Review Meeting
4/ 26/ 2022 Special 5:00 PM Absentee Review Meeting
5/ 3/ 2022 Special 5:00 P.M. Absentee Review Meeting
5/ 10/ 2022 *Special 5:00 P.M. Absentee Review Meeting
5/ 16/ 2022 Special 5:00 P.M. Absentee Review Meeting
5/ 17/ 2022 Special TBD Count Absentee Ballots
5/ 26/ 2022 Special TBD Count Absentee & Provisional Ballots
5/ 27/ 2022 Special 11:00 A.M. County Canvass of Election Results
6/ 14/ 2022 Regular 5:15 P.M. Conduct business as needed
7/ 12/ 2022 Regular 5:15 P.M. Conduct business as needed
8/ 9/ 2022 Regular 5:15 P.M. Conduct business as needed
9/ 13/ 2022 Regular 5:15 P.M. Conduct business as needed
10/ 4/ 2022 Special 5:00 P.M. Absentee Review Meeting
10/ 11/ 2022 *Special 5:00 P.M. Absentee Review Meeting
10/ 18/ 2022 Special 5:00 P.M. Absentee Review Meeting
10/ 25/ 2022 Special 5:00 P.M. Absentee Review Meeting
11/ 1/ 2022 Special 5:00 P.M. Absentee Review Meeting
11/ 7/ 2022 Special 5:00 P.M. Absentee Review Meeting
11/ 8/ 2022 Special TBD Count Absentee Ballots
11/ 15/ 2022 Regular 5:15 PM Conduct business as needed
11/17/2022 Special TBD Count Absentee & Provisional Ballots
11/ 18/ 2022 Special 11:00 A.M. County Canvass of Election Results
12/ 13/ 2022 Regular 5:15 P.M. Conduct business as needed
* Denotes a regular meeting that falls on the date of a special meeting required by statute
If any meetings of the Board of Elections are added to this calendar, or cancelled, notice will be provided.
For more details on the Board of Elections, please call 910-798-7330 or visit our website at nhcvote.com.
Legend
Holidays Absentee One-Stop Voting Voter Registration Deadline
Regular Board Meeting Election Day Voting * Absentee Meetings
Canvass Special Meeting: Pre-Canvass
2022
JANUARY
S M T W T F S
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31
FEBRUARY
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28
MARCH
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31
APRIL
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12* 13 14 15 16
17 18 19* 20 21 22 23
24 25 26* 27 28 29 30
MAY
S M T W T F S
1 2 3* 4 5 6 7
8 9 10* 11 12 13 14
15 16* 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31
JUNE
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30
JULY
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
AUGUST
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4
5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31
SEPTEMBER
S M T W T F S
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30
OCTOBER
S M T W T F S
1
2 3 4* 5 6 7 8
9 10 11* 12 13 14 15
16 17 18* 19 20 21 22
23 24 25* 26 27 28 29
30 31
NOVEMBER
S M T W T F S
1* 2 3 4 5
6 7* 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30
DECEMBER
S M T W T F S
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Regular Meeting
New Hanover County Board of Elections
December 14, 2021
Subject:
Polling Place Change for Precinct W28
Applicable Statutes and/or Rules:
N.C. Gen. Stat §163-128(a)
Summary:
The current polling place for W28, Cape Fear Free Will Baptist Church, is located outside of the precinct
boundaries of precinct W28. Per N.C. Gen. Stat §163-130.1, county boards of elections, by unanimous
vote of all its members, may establish a polling place for a precinct that is located outside that precinct.
The NHC Board of Elections approved the out-of-precinct polling place at the July 20, 2021 meeting,
which was approved by the Executive Director at the NC State Board of Elections. The polling place usage
agreement must be reevaluated after each general election to determine whether it is still the only
available option.
Wesley Memorial United Methodist Church has agreed to permit use of the church as a polling place for
precinct W28 in the 2022 elections. The proposed polling place is located within the precinct boundaries
of precinct W28 and has sufficient square footage in the voting enclosure as well as adequate parking to
meet the needs of voters in this precinct. This facility has chosen to restrict electioneering in the
following ways: no campaign signage or electioneering on premises at anytime. This is not an
uncommon selection by private facilities. There are no suitable public facilities that can host elections
within the precinct boundaries of precinct W28. The only available public facility within or adjacent to
the precinct boundary is Winter Park Elementary School, which lacks adequate interior space for a
voting enclosure and has insufficient parking to meet the needs of voters in this precinct.
Document/s Included:
Images of the previous and proposed polling place for precinct W28; Resolution to Adopt Polling Place
Change (W28) (Provided at Board Meeting)
Board Action Required:
Staff recommends approval
Item # 5b
1
Precinct W28 – Proposed Polling Place Change
Current Polling Place Proposed Polling Place
Cape Fear Free Will Baptist Church Wesley Memorial United
Methodist Church Activity Building
5350 Holly Tree Rd
Wilmington, NC 28409
1401 S. College Rd
Wilimington, NC 28403
Aerial Image
2
Polling Place Entrance
3
Voting Enclosure
Regular Meeting
New Hanover County Board of Elections
December 14, 2021
Subject:
General Discussion
Summary:
This is an opportunity for discussion on other elections-related matters not included in the
meeting agenda.
Board Action Required:
Discuss as necessary
Item # 6