Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNHC Board of Elections Minutes 10.26.2021 Board Minutes – 10/26/2021 SPECIAL MEETING New Hanover County Board of Elections October 26, 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; Susanne Werner, NHCDP; Jill Hopman, NHCDP; Matthew Emborsky, GOP; Jean Michael Akey; Debbie Barlok, NHC GOP; John Jaskey; Mike Torbit; Tabitha Meready; ? Torbit; Will Knecht, NHC GOP. Virtual attendees: Julius Rothlein; Jim; Sharon Smith; Jody Kemp. OPENING Chair Carter called the meeting to order at 5:08 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 that the agenda be approved with one change under New Business, to consider item 4. b., Chief Judge/Judge Substitutions before item 4.a., Review of Absentee Ballot Applications, second by Member Bryan. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENT Chair Carter called on the public attendees, in-person and virtual, for their comments or questions on topics that are within the Board’s jurisdiction, limited to two minutes each. He reminded the audience, this being an official meeting, to observe proper decorum and to yield the floor to a Board member or staff to ask or answer a question. Virtual attendee Julius Rothlein, NHC GOP, made two public records requests, first, to review the absentee ballot application forms received by the NHC Board of Elections. Board Minutes – 10/26/2021 The review will assess whether the requester provided the required identification warranting issuance of an absentee ballot. Second, to review the official register of absentee ballots required by NCGS §163-228(a) and (a1). He further asked for several changes in processes for the remainder of the One Stop early voting period and Election Day: (1) Allow observers to look inside the DS200 before voting begins to verify no ballots have been inserted into the machine after it was cleared and closed the previous day; (2) Count manually and record the number of ballots removed from the DS-200 during closing before sealing them in polybags; and (3) Include voters who voted provisionally on the daily list of voters given to observers or runners. Chair Carter called on Director Hunter-Havens to speak to his requests. The Director asked that the public records requests be submitted in writing for response. Mr. Rothlein said no email is needed, that Member Kemp will distribute a copy of Mr. Rothlein’s remarks and requests to the Board and staff. 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 One Stop early voting in progress. The Director reported One Stop is running smoothly. A recurring challenge is the ballot on demand printers. The site officials have dealt with those challenges quickly to keep voting running smoothly. Approximately 4,500 voters so far have voted, ahead of the 2019 pace, but unclear if the numbers indicate higher turnout or a shift between voting methods. Today is the last day to submit civilian absentee-by-mail requests. Chair Carter called on the Board members for any general discussion. Member Kemp asked about a complaint about a sign at the Senior Resource site. He asked who oversees sign violations? Director Hunter-Havens said the Board of Elections can regulate the buffer zone, where electioneering is not allowed. Otherwise, by statute, NCDOT has some sign enforcement responsibility. The report she received concerned a fender-bender allegedly due to a sign blocking a driver’s line of sight. The sign had been moved when she checked on it the next day. The candidate or a representative relocated that sign. Member Kemp asked whether the Senior Resource Center is a county facility? It is. Member Kemp asked the Chair when the Board might address Mr. Rothlein’s requests? Chair Carter said this is an appropriate time. He asked Member Kemp which of the items is most important to Mr. Rothlein and the Republican Party? He said the first two items will likely need to go to the State Board so by the time we hear from them it will be past Election Day. The change in procedure to allow observers to look in the DS200 before voting begins is the first priority. There are reports from other jurisdictions about ballots left in machines overnight. Let’s give the observers the chance to see that the machines are empty before voting resumes. Second priority is the manual count of ballots when removed from the machines. Just because the public counter has changed does not mean that is the number of ballots being removed at the end of the day. Chair Carter clarified that the requested inspections would occur at the beginning and end of the day. Is it your understanding that these inspections are taking place, but observers are not allowed to observe them? Director Hunter-Havens said that observers are not allowed in the polling place during opening. Unauthorized persons are not permitted access to the voting equipment. Part of the opening procedure is having the bipartisan team of officials open the DS200 and check the blue bin, following processes established by the State Board. As for the second item, manually counting ballots during closing, observers are allowed to watch the closing process at a distance that preserves the confidentiality of voted ballots and absentee identification Board Minutes – 10/26/2021 numbers. The ballots are not manually counted unless there is an issue in reconciling. There are other checks in place to assure that voted ballots match voter history. Member Bryan asked the Director to explain those other checks in the audit process. The Director said that between Election Day and canvass staff reconciles all voter history captured in the electronic pollbook against the number of paper ballots cast. When there are any differences, for which there are several possible reasons, reconciliation tells the story as to why. The State Board runs checks through all the software and provides reports to us identifying where the differences are. We then must describe the reasons for any differences in a report to the State Board. The second check is the sample audit hand-eye count of two precincts or One Stop sites in a specified contest randomly selected by the State Board. Bipartisan teams of four people conduct that sample audit count, two as talliers, one caller and one observer. The goal is to be sure the machine results match the actual ballots. When the results do not match, it is often because the voter’s error kept the machine from reading the voter’s selection. The bipartisan team follows directions from the State Board to determine whether the voter’s intent is clear. If it is, the team will award a vote to the intended candidate. It is not unusual for a candidate to pick up additional votes during the sample audit count. Member Kemp said this is part of the reason why he has been emphasizing the need to appoint Republican and Democratic judges, so that each party is represented when machines are opened and tapes are signed. If State regulation prevents observers from being present during opening, it is even more important to have bipartisan representation in the polling place. Member Hunter said unaffiliated voters should have equal right to serve as precinct officials as the statute provides. The most important qualification is residence in the precinct. She trusts that the people who take on the role of precinct officials take their oath seriously to carry out the election successfully and fairly. Unaffiliated voters are just as qualified to do that as are Democrats and Republicans. While I can’t speak to the distrust that exists, unaffiliated voters have the same right to choose to affiliate with a party or not, and should not be penalized for that choice. My fear is that if we pander to that line of thought and appoint only Republicans and Democrats, the outcome is automatically questionable. Chair Carter said there are a small number of precincts where we have two unaffiliated voters and one Democrat or one Republican are appointed, and that gives me no concerns. He is comforted by the presence of observers as an extra layer of safeguards. Member Bryan understands restrictions on access to voting machines. Could it be resolved by using video to observe without touching? Is the issue about preventing touching to avoid tinkering or adulterating the machine, or is it about looking inside the machine? He tends to think the concern is about unauthorized manipulation of the machine. This Board is not authorized to change the rules, but it seems like a small matter that could be easily resolved by Facetime or a similar technology. Director Hunter-Havens said this is the duty and responsibility of the site leads and precinct judges. Member Bryan continued, saying that manual counting of ballots at closing is not too onerous in a municipal election, but a completely different burden in a statewide or presidential election. Is it just not required or is it too onerous a job to complete timely? Director Hunter-Havens said that manual counts can produce different results. The issue is maintaining a proper chain of custody of the ballots. The safer approach is to remove the ballots, organize them, and place them in a polybag for secure return. Then if there are differences between ballots and voter history, it can be investigated. County boards of elections do not implement administrative changes in response to requests from observers. The State Board and its legal team need to vette such a request to assure uniform administration of elections across all 100 counties. Member Bryan asked if a manual count at closing is too onerous or not. Director Hunter-Havens said is not warranted given the other safeguards in place to assure that ballots cast match voter history. If there is a discrepancy, it must be reviewed and reconciled. This is the responsibility of the site Board Minutes – 10/26/2021 leads and their bipartisan team. They have sworn an oath to perform their duties in compliance with the statutes and the administrative code. Member Bryan said he understands all that and agrees with it. But is it an onerous task to add? The Director responded that it is adding an additional step that is not warranted. The voting equipment is tested and tabulating correctly. Adding more steps does not necessarily assure greater accuracy. Voter turnout varies widely by election and by polling place, from less than 100 ballots to 1,500 ballots. The key is the uniform process for each election and uniform administration across all 100 counties. Member Hunter observed that having more hands physically on the ballots is not a good idea, especially in light of concerns about ballot tampering. The concern is the security of the ballots. Manual counting can lead to more questions and problems. Member Bryan asked for clarification from the Director, that in comparing the number of ballots against voter history, you will catch a discrepancy? She said for one the software will show any unusual activity and will flag that transaction as a possible conflict. She gave the example that occurred today, where the ballot failed to print and the software made note of the incomplete transaction. That prompts staff to review that conflict and research further using the incident report completed by the site lead which resulted in cancelling the incomplete transaction. Chair Carter asked the Director where to find the rules for observers in the polling places the statute, NCGS §163-45, or the Administrative Code? She said they are in the Administrative Code as well as SBE numbered memos. Chair Carter turned to the third question from Mr. Rothlein, regarding publishing the names of voters who voted provisionally on the daily list of voters available to party observers or runners. Director Hunter-Havens said that observers can obtain the list of voters who have cast regular ballots at designated times during the day and after closing of the polls. She previously received this same request and sought guidance from the State Board. Provisional ballots are conditional until researched and the county Board acts on them, and thus are not public records. Should SBE guidance change to allow publication, she will of course make the names available. The SBE Legal Team is reviewing the request, but no final answer has been provided so far. Member Hunter asked at what point is a provisional ballot no longer conditional. The Director said that once the county Board acts on the provisional ballots and the approved or partially approved ballots are scanned at the pre-canvass meeting, the ballot is cast, and the list becomes a public record. Member Kemp asked if there is a log of absentee ballot requests that flags when a voter who requested an absentee ballot presents to vote at a One Stop site or on Election Day. Director Hunter-Havens said there is an electronic log of absentee ballots cast, but not of the request forms. Voters who request an absentee ballot or were mailed an absentee ballot may choose not to vote the ballot, and instead vote in person. The log flags the occasional situation, usually a mistake, where the voter has forgotten submitting the absentee ballot or thinks it is a different election, or where a voter has cast an absentee ballot and voted at a One Stop site or precinct on Election Day. The staff will bring any such situations to the attention of the Board with a recommendation as to which ballot to cancel, after investigation by the State Board Investigations Team. Member Kemp asked whether provisional ballots are logged the same way. The Director said no because they are conditional ballots until researched and approved by the Board. When the staff begins researching the provisional ballots and discovers that the voter cast a second ballot, that information is reported to the State Board for investigation. Member Kemp asked, when the provisional ballot is printed during One Stop, is it marked with a unique identifier like other One Stop ballots? The Director said the provisional application has a unique identifying number that also appears on the issued provisional ballot, linking the application and ballot to that voter. Board Minutes – 10/26/2021 Chair Carter reviewed the Board meeting schedule: Monday, November 1 at 5:00 p.m.; Tuesday, November 2 at 2:00 p.m.; Monday, November 8 at 2:00 p.m., and Tuesday, November 9 at 11:00 a.m. The next meeting after that is the regular meeting on Tuesday, December 14 at 5:15 p.m. Hearing no further matters for general discussion, Chair Carter closed the general discussion period and turned to the next item on the agenda. NEW BUSINESS b. Chief Judge/Judge Substitutions to fill vacancies for the 2021 Municipal Election Only Chair Carter called on Director Hunter-Havens to present her report on administrative assignments of five precinct officials as shown on the spreadsheet provided to the Board. Four judges and one chief judge advised they are not available to work on the municipal election day but are available to work future elections. After taking into consideration residency in the precinct, skill sets, and willingness and availability to work, staff has identified five officials who can step into the needed positions. These assignments apply for this election only. Attention was also given to party affiliation, making every effort to replace the chief judge or judge with someone of the same party whenever possible. The recommendations include assigning three Unaffiliated officials to replace two Democratic judges and one Democratic chief judge, one Republican to replace a Republican judge, and one Democratic official to replace an Unaffiliated judge. Chair Carter noted that none of these assignments occur in the precincts the Board was struggling with in previous meetings. Director Hunter-Havens said there are a handful of vacancies where staff is balancing residency, party affiliation and skill set in a very dynamic process. There is also a trained back-up pool of election officials available. Five officials dropped out as recently as yesterday. Member Kemp asked where to find the statutory authority to make these appointments? He assumes it is §163-41 (c) or (d)? Director Hunter-Havens said the Board is not making appointments to fill vacancies. These are administrative substitutions for this election only. The referenced statute requires these officials. These administrative assignments are presented to the Board as a matter of information. Member Hunter asked if approval of the Board is required? The Director said no, the list is presented for endorsement of the administrative assignments. Member Kemp asked the Director is that authority in writing? He is looking at (d) which requires the chair to make appointments to fill vacancies. The Director said (d) addresses a vacancy in the original appointment. These substitutions arise because the appointed official is not available for this election but otherwise will continue in that position, following the state-wide guidance and procedure in place for all county boards of elections. She agreed to follow up with the State Board for something in writing. Member Kemp asked why (d) does not apply? Chair Carter said he understands that a vacancy only arises when there is a resignation or death, removal, upon appointment of a successor, or any other cause. Member Kemp asked whether the Board is appointing these officials? Chair Carter said no, these are assignments. The Director said these are assignments for this election only and ends when canvass is completed. They are temporary substitutes for appointed chief judges and judges who are unable to serve in this election. Member Kemp asked about the substitution for M02 judge Lindy Ford. The Director said she is not available because she did not complete her HR forms timely, so we are unable to assign her. Member Kemp said she was appointed by the Republican party chair so she must serve, we can’t replace her. Director Hunter-Havens said she remains the appointed judge, just is unable to serve this time. Member Kemp asked if the substitutions had completed the required paperwork. The Director said yes and at this point we can only substitute with people who are in our election officials database. It is too late to on-board anyone else. Member Kemp says she has texted Mr. Rothlein that she is prepared to serve. The Director said she has not completed the on-boarding Board Minutes – 10/26/2021 process by the established deadlines, and we are unable to pay her. Member Kemp said her text indicates she was told M02 is not open for the municipal election. The Director said that is not true and no one would have told her that. It is illegal to allow her to work when she has not completed the necessary paperwork. She can serve in the next election. Member Kemp asked if the Board needs to vote on the substitutions? Director Hunter-Havens said previous boards would endorse and support the administrative assignments, usually unanimously. She is reporting the substitutions as required but it does not require Board action. Chair Carter said he supports the substitutions with reservations and moved to support the temporary assigned substitutions, second by Member Hunter, without reservation. Chair Carter, Secretary Miller, Members Bryan and Hunter voted aye; Member Kemp voted no. Motion carried by majority vote. a. Review of Absentee Ballot Applications Chair Carter called on Director Hunter-Havens to present the returned absentee-by-mail ballot applications for approval. She reported there are 63 returned absentee ballots: 61 Civilian and 2 Overseas. One of the Overseas ballots was returned by email. She has copied the affirmation and attached it to the envelope. The second Overseas ballot was returned by regular mail. Two Civilian ballots have anomalies but meet the requirements for approval. The voter for one of these started to sign on the Witness line, realized it and signed on the voter’s signature line. She checked with the State Board who said that was not disqualifying. The second ballot involves two voters who live in the same household. All the requirements were met, but for some reason they initialed in the space at the top reserved for County Board use. Again, she reviewed the anomaly with the State Board who advised it was not disqualifying or invalidating. Both are flagged for the Board’s review. [Member Kemp left the meeting.] She passed the container- return envelopes to the Board for review, bundled by precinct. [Chair Carter left the meeting.] [Two minutes later, Member Kemp returned.] [One minute later, Chair Carter returned.] During the review, Member Kemp said he is wondering about a process where the Board is only reviewing the return envelope without seeing the original request for an absentee ballot and the log for in-person return. He has asked the Director to see both. She advised that an individual member of the Board cannot see it, but the Board may request to see them. Board review determines that the absentee-by-mail ballot was returned properly, but does not address whether it was obtained properly. Member Hunter said the signatures on the return envelope are a method of self-authentication of the prior steps in the process, making review unnecessary. Member Miller noted this was a point of much discussion by the Board in the last election when the procedures were changed, emphasizing that the voter and witness signatures are the safeguards. Director Hunter-Havens said, just like a voter registration application, the request for absentee ballot form contains verifying information – last four of social security number or driver’s license number verified by the issuing agency – that serve as a cross-check and the request cannot be processed by the software without it. The request is not valid without that information. The request goes to the incomplete queue and the voter is sent a letter to supply the missing number. Member Kemp asked if the request form is scanned electronically. Director Hunter-Havens said the requests are retained electronically and the application must be linked to the applicant’s voter registration record. He asked if staff keep a log that verifies who returned the absentee ballot request. Director Hunter-Havens confirmed that the person delivering the form completes the returned requests log which includes identifying whether the deliverer is the voter, a near relative, or verifiable legal guardian. All forms are uploaded to the State Board each election cycle. Member Kemp said we are seeing just the tail end of the process without seeing the requests and return logs. Director Hunter-Havens said the special Board meetings are designed specifically for the Board to review and approve or disapprove the returned absentee ballots. Chair Carter said that if he had someone’s social security number or driver’s license number, he could submit a request to have an absentee ballot mailed to that person’s address. Member Kemp said the Board Minutes – 10/26/2021 request form allows sending the absentee ballot to a different address, other than the registration address. Member Hunter said the returned absentee ballot requires the signatures of the voter and two witnesses who are verifying the identity of the person who completed the absentee ballot. It is a self-authenticating document. She does not see the value in reviewing the earlier steps in the process. Secretary Miller said, rather than self-authenticating, there are a number of points of outside authentication. Chair Carter asked Member Kemp what he is wanting to see. Member Kemp said he requested to see the log and was told he could not unless the Board allows it. He said there is a jurisdiction in a nearby state where the county registrar did not require the social security number and processed the application, and is now being sued, prompting his questions about the application process. Here we are validating the process by the Board’s review and being told that the software will not process the request without all the required verifying information, but seeing the requests and logs would make the process whole. Chair Carter asked Director Hunter-Havens what would be involved in providing the access Member Kemp has requested. She said that if the Board wants to make an individual confidential document available to an individual Board member to look at with no notes or photographs or making copies allowed, the Board must approve that by majority vote. It does not allow us to bring the register into a Board meeting to compare every single ballot. There are other checks in place to do that. The absentee register becomes a public record on Election Day upon opening of the polls. The purpose of the special absentee Board meeting is to approve the returned ballot applications. Member Kemp said he has a problem with something being considered confidential from this Board. I can see it as to an individual Board member, but we are responsible. Not being able to see official records raises all kinds of red flags for me. Chair Carter said it is not appropriate to do this tonight on short notice. Member Kemp said maybe on Monday we can look at a random sample because on Tuesday the counting of ballots begins. Director Hunter-Havens said that is not possible without a majority of the Board authorizing review by an individual Board member. There are other administrative checks and safeguards in place to monitor the process. The Board’s role is to review and approve the returned ballot applications. Member Kemp reminded the Board of the report from Mr. Rothlein at a previous meeting that outlined his concerns after reviewing absentee-by-mail container-return envelopes after the 2020 election, alleging possible problems from that review. Director Hunter-Havens said that many of the situations cited as problems by Mr. Rothlein were related to postmarks, but nonetheless are valid applications under North Carolina law. Chair Carter said that, based on his review of case law, the courts only delve into questions regarding absentee-by-mail ballots when the results are close, tampering is alleged, and the outcome may be affected. While he understands the concerns being raised and does not object to review by the Board, neither does he desire to undertake such a review. The request for review while the election is unfolding is not practical and not consistent with statute. Secretary Miller said he has no problem with allowing Board members appropriate access to documents, but he is concerned the Board is risking a misunderstanding of the Board’s role. Recent discussions veer into the realm of micromanaging the staff, overstepping the proper role of oversight, which is the Board’s role, and not management. We are appointed to serve on this Board because of our character and our general experience. We are not experts in the details of election security, we are not software engineers, none of us have worked as elections security professionals. It is totally within our role to ask questions, to raise concerns, to educate ourselves. I am concerned about this innovative, invasive, and investigative approach in an ad hoc manner that can be detrimental. Member Hunter agreed with Secretary Miller’s sentiments. The request seems unnecessary as a response to a general, unsubstantiated fear. Staff is doing what they are supposed to do. When there are specific complaints, those will be addressed appropriately. Her Board Minutes – 10/26/2021 concern is hindering the staff in doing their jobs by pushing for things that are unnecessary in the absence of specific evidence or allegations of fraud. Going through absentee ballot applications to compare to absentee ballots returned is redundant when the returned ballot is verified by two witnesses. Member Bryan said if it is legally allowed, he has no problem with the request, but is trying to understand where the request is coming from. The voter cannot vote twice. Is the question that the voter did not request the absentee ballot? Member Kemp said that the absentee request form is required to contain certain information and if it does not, then the form should be returned and no ballot sent. Chair Carter described two possible scenarios. In the first, the voter fills out the request form but does not include all the required information. The second scenario is more nefarious but not very likely, where some organized group is making requests for absentee ballots without the voter’s knowledge and attempting to intercept and vote the ballot illegally. He was not aware of the concern that a voter may fail to complete the request correctly but receive an absentee ballot. Member Kemp said he is concerned that the SBE is not following the law and the county board is required to follow the guidance of the SBE. The appearance is that the law is not being followed by the SBE when they make rulings that contradict the law. Member Hunter disagreed with that statement. The State Board are the experts on North Carolina election law. Member Kemp said there is a “must” versus a “may” in NCGS §163-41 (c) and the State Board said this Board “must” vote when the statute says “may” vote. Member Bryan agreed there are instances where the State Board has overstepped, and federal judges have stepped in and said so last year. They are not infallible. Regarding this request, unless there is some indication of fraud, he sees no harm in checking that administratively someone sent a ballot properly as a check on internal elections operations. Chair Carter said he would be concerned if the Board received reports that voters were receiving ballots that were not requested. He would want to know that a voter did not fill out an absentee request form properly but still received an absentee ballot. He has no problem with Member Kemp seeing what he is asking to see and legally able to see as long as it is done as the State Board deems appropriate and it does not impose an undue burden on the Director and her staff. Member Bryan asked about one of the ballots under review. The assistant also served as a witness. That is permissible. Regarding a different ballot, there are two different printed witness’ names, but the signatures look like the same name. Does that need further review? It is debatable, but looks similar. Director Hunter-Havens said, as a rule, signature comparison is not permitted. If the Board has a question, the Board can approve or disapprove the application. The guidance regarding signatures requires clear evidence. Secretary Miller reviewed the application and observed two different signatures, two different printed names and it appears the first name of the second signature was crossed through and something written on top making it hard to read, and two different addresses. Member Bryan said the last names are the same. He said he wanted to bring it to the Board’s attention, but he is not saying the application is invalid. Member Kemp said this Board delegates duties to the Director for which it is responsible. Being told that there are things in the process that are confidential and the Board cannot see them is a red flag that has been raised because of the guidance of the State Board, nothing to do with Director Hunter-Havens. The State Board is telling her that the full Board must authorize an individual Board member to see confidential information, then the Director can work out the arrangements. He is asking to see the log sheets to see what information is recorded. He has read about a problem in a nearby jurisdiction. It is helpful that the Director says that an application for an absentee ballot cannot be entered into the system without all the required information. He is getting questions about voting integrity, and he does not have answers for them. If he can say he Board Minutes – 10/26/2021 has looked at the records, what else do you want me to do, giving them an answer instead of “I don’t know”. This is the basis of some of the questions that he is asking. The pressure is on him to be show that integrity, that he believes is there, is in fact present. He has said all along he believes in the integrity of the system. His goal is to demonstrate that and have this Board and the State Board demonstrate that to the public in a way that leaves no doubt. Chair Carter appreciates that the members are all pulling in the same direction. He asked Member Kemp if his statement about delegating certain duties is referring to the Resolution the Board adopted in their first meeting? Member Kemp said if everything that is done by tradition that is not explicitly in that document is continuing to be delegated, that is the challenge because this Board does not know what has been delegated by tradition. This Board is blind to the process. Member Hunter asked if it is true that to allow Member Kemp to see the log requires unanimous consent of the Board? Director Hunter-Havens said the State Board legal team’s guidance is that an individual Board member has no authority to require staff to provide this access. However, the Board, by majority vote, may take official action to allow an individual member to come to the office and review the register, and we will make that happen, as instructed by the majority vote of the Board, making sure staff has the capacity to assign a staff member to sit with the member to ensure no copying, no notes, and no photos are made of the records. These are like voter registration applications, which cannot be shown without proper oversight of the process to protect confidential documents and maintaining the proper chain of custody of the documents. Member Bryan asked, if the Board approves his request to look at the register, does the motion need to include directing that a staff person be present? Director Hunter-Havens said having a staff person present is automatic in carrying out that direction, to make sure that no improper actions are taken while reviewing confidential documents. Chair Carter asked how long would it take for someone to review the register? The Director said it depends on what the person is trying to do. There are a little less than 400 entries, one row each, on the registry. Chair Carter asked Member Kemp how long he thought he would need? Member Kemp said he has taken the same oath that we rely on other people to keep, and he has a problem with the challenge here to his integrity in his review. He will agree to whatever it takes, no pen or pencil in the room, leave his cell phone out of the room. Chair Carter said we all took the same oath, and no one is saying anyone would not uphold that oath. He asked to focus on the mechanics of getting the access being requested. He asked Member Kemp how much time he would need. Member Kemp said if the request forms are together in a file, he can flip through them in a few minutes. Director Hunter-Havens said it would not be the original forms, it will be a print-out like the one she provided for the One Stop applications, one row of date per request. The absentee register is a report that can be printed. Printing each request form is a much more labor-intensive process requiring redaction of confidential information and involving many more staff hours to prepare. The forms are scanned in batches and stored after entry into the registry. Some may be in the office; some may be in storage off-site. Chair Carter asked Member Kemp if he has issues with reviewing the summary print-out? He said he wants to see both. He has enough concerns with being told he can’t see it, so he would love to see both. Director Hunter-Havens said, at this point in the election schedule, she does not have staff capacity to produce a record of that level of detail. That would involve printing out each application. Following an exchange between Members Kemp and Hunter, Member Bryan said the answer to this request should not be no, but appreciates understanding the logistical challenges involved. Director Hunter-Havens said the work involved is not possible while wrapping up One Stop voting and preparing for Election Day. The records are mixed in with other scanned records, such as voter registrations. Staff will have to hunt through the boxes, retrieve the request forms, assemble and verify the number of forms, copy and redact. She is happy to fulfill the request, just not enough time to do so before Election Day and the post-election cavass work. The original request was a public records request to review the absentee register. A Board member’s request to review the unredacted forms themselves will require further State Board guidance. Board Minutes – 10/26/2021 Chair Carter moved that Member Kemp and any other Board member who wishes to join him be permitted to review the register under the supervision of the staff on or before close of business Friday, October 29 for up to one hour, and as soon as practicable after the final canvass, that Member Kemp and any other Board member who wishes to join him, be permitted to review the absentee ballot request forms for as long as they would like subject to staff availability. Member Kemp said he would like to see the readily accessible application forms. Chair Carter said his motion would allow that after the final canvass. In response to a question from Member Bryan about the time limit, Member Kemp said an hour is more than sufficient. He wants to be able to say he looked. He wants to see at least some of the application forms, what is readily available, before the Board votes to approve the absentee ballots on Election Day. Director Hunter-Havens will need guidance from the State Board legal team as to the format of those forms for such review. The absentee register does not have confidential information, other than the absentee code, but the actual request form includes social security numbers (last four), driver’s license numbers, and dates of birth which are confidential. No absentee request can be honored until the social security number or driver’s license number is verified by the respective agency. There are checks in place to verify that the voter is eligible to receive an absentee ballot. Chair Carter said he believes and trusts those checks. He also believes Board members should have as broad access as possible to the primary documents as the law allows. Chair Carter repeated his motion, that Member Kemp and any other Board member who wishes to join him be allowed to inspect the log for up to one hour under the supervision of the staff on or before close of business Friday, October 29; further after the completion of the final canvass in New Hanover County, subject to legal guidance by the State Board of Elections, that Member Kemp and any other Board member who wishes to join him be able to inspect all absentee ballot request forms received by the New Hanover County elections office for the municipal election, under the supervision of Director Hunter-Havens and her staff, second by Member Kemp. Chair Carter, Members Bryan and Kemp voted aye; Secretary Miller and Member Hunter voted nay. Motion carried by majority vote. Upon completing review of the absentee ballot applications, Chair Carter moved to approve 61 civilian absentee ballots and 2 military/overseas ballots as presented, and to direct Director Hunter-Havens and staff to take the preliminary steps to tabulate the ballots, second by Secretary Miller. Motion carried unanimously. Director Hunter-Havens presented the One Stop Application Certification for the 3,139 applications received between October 15 and October 25. Chair Carter moved to approve 3,139 One Stop absentee applications, second by Member Kemp. Member Bryan asked to review the printout. [Member Kemp left the meeting at 7:09 p.m.] Motion carried unanimously. Secretary Miller clarified for the record that the vote was 4 to 0 on the motion. The Board members present signed the two Certifications. Chair Carter asked the staff to proceed with resetting the room for ballot scanning. The public in- person attendees were asked to step out while the room is reset and the DS-800 is started, then they will be invited back to observe the scanning process. [Member Hunter left the meeting.] Virtual attendee Julius Rothlein asked, pursuant to an on-going request to review the absentee container-return envelopes, when the 61 envelopes approved at this meeting will be available for review. Chair Carter asked him to hold his question until the Board members return and the room reorganization is done. Chair Carter returned to Mr. Rothlein’s question and addressed it to Director Hunter-Havens. She will schedule use of the Oak Room in the Library and reach out to Mr. Rothlein when she is able to schedule. She said they stayed about 20 minutes last time. She will also reach out to the Democratic Party officials. Board Minutes – 10/26/2021 ADJOURNMENT Member Bryan moved that the meeting be adjourned at 7:49 p.m., second by Secretary Miller. Motion carried unanimously. The next Board meeting is scheduled to be held on Monday, November 1, 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 BY: __________________________ _________________________________ DERRICK R. MILLER RAE HUNTER-HAVENS SECRETARY ELECTIONS DIRECTOR