Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard Meeting Agenda Packet 07-12-2022MEETING AGENDA Date: July 12, 2022 Time: 5:15 PM Location: Bd of Elections Office, Long Leaf Room Type: Regular Scheduled Attendees: Oliver Carter III, Chair Rae Hunter-Havens, Elections Director Derrick R. Miller, Secretary Caroline Dawkins, Elections Deputy Director Lyana G. Hunter, Member Jenna Dahlgren, Elections Logistics Specialist Bruce Kemp, Member Russ C. Bryan, Member Visitor(s): Lisa Wurtzbacher, Assistant County Manager AGENDA ITEMS 1.Meeting Opening a.Call to Orderb.Preliminary Announcement i.Silence Phones ii.Recording & Streaming iii.Other c.Pledge of Allegiance d.Approval of Agenda e.Approval of Minutes (3/15/2022, 4/12/2022, 4/19/2022, and 4/26/2022) 2.Public Comment and Question Period •2-minute limit •20-minute limit total 3.Director’s Report a.Financial Update b.List Maintenance c.FY22-23 Budget Enhancement Requests 4.Statutorily-Required Business •2022 General Election Absentee One-Stop Voting Plan 5.General Discussion •Other Elections-Related Matters 6.Adjournment *Agenda packets are sent via email in advance of meetings. Regular Meeting New Hanover County Board of Elections July 12, 2022 Subject: Approval of Agenda Summary: N/A Board Action Required: Staff recommends approval Item # 1d Regular Meeting New Hanover County Board of Elections July 12, 2022 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 3/15/2022, 4/12/2022, 4/19/2022, and 4/26/2022 meetings. Board Action Required: Staff recommends approval Item # 1d Item # 1e Board Minutes 03/15/20228 Page | 1 REGULAR MEETING New Hanover County Board of Elections March 15, 2022 5:15 P.M. ATTENDANCE Members: Oliver Carter III, Chairman (virtually) 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 Jenna Dahlgren, Elections Logistics Specialist Joan Geiszler-Ludlum, Administrative Elections Technician Visitors: Sheryl Kelly, Assistant County Manager Public Attendees: Jules Rothlein, NHC GOP; Deborah Dicks-Maxwell; Matthew Emborsky. Virtual Attendees: Loraine Buker; Tyler Daye; unnamed guest 1. MEETING OPENING a. Call to Order Secretary Miller called the meeting to order at 5:17 p.m., reporting that Chair Carter is attending the meeting virtually. Secretary Miller will facilitate the meeting. 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. b. Preliminary Announcements Secretary Miller reminded the audience to silence their phones, and that the meeting is being recorded and streamed. c. Pledge of Allegiance Secretary Miller invited all in attendance to rise and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. d. Approval of Agenda Member Hunter moved that the agenda be approved as submitted, second by Member Bryan. Motion carried unanimously. Board Minutes 03/15/20228 Page | 2 2. PUBLIC COMMENT AND QUESTION PERIOD Secretary Miller called upon the public in-person attendees for their comments or questions, limited to two minutes each with a total limit of twenty minutes. He reminded each speaker to stand and introduce themselves, then the two-minute limit will begin. Julius Rothlein, NHC GOP, said that earlier today he submitted to the Board by email a list of 12 questions on behalf of the county GOP for Board response before the May primary. The GOP has concerns about when they will receive a written response to their after-action report on the municipal election, filed December 6, 2021, and the questions asked at the February 15, 2022 meeting. Mr. Rothlein said the GOP has raised various issues in an effort to improve the transparency of election processes and create greater confidence in the integrity of elections. He said responses to the after-action report and questions will go a long way toward meeting that objective. He said One Stop Early Voting for the primary election begins in six weeks and he really needs to see action on these matters sooner rather than later. Secretary Miller called on Director Hunter-Havens to address the comments. The Director said that some of the questions and requests for process enhancements were forwarded to the State Board of Elections (SBE) and do not warrant a direct response. Some questions will require response from the SBE, and she will share that when she receives it. The SBE is beginning to send updated guidance for the 2022 Primary Election regarding public record requests and confidential data which she has not yet had time to review. She expects the updated guidance on observers to be issued this week along with guidance on in-person voting. Those guidance documents will address many of the questions the GOP has submitted. Mr. Rothlein said the question remains as to when the GOP will receive responses to their questions, which they have had for a long time. Member Hunter said this Board cannot give him a timeline because this Board is not responsible for those processes. Mr. Rothlein insisted these questions can be answered by the local Board and have nothing to do with the SBE. Member Hunter said that is your opinion. Mr. Rothlein said that is his opinion until someone can tell him where he is wrong. He would like a response that tells him what can be answered by the county board and what must be sent on to the SBE for response. Secretary Miller said his comment has been heard and called on the Board members for any further comment. Chair Carter said he found Mr. Rothlein consistent in his requests and gave some of his responses via email discussion, and he has given unofficial written responses to some of them. He agreed with the Director, that a number of these requests are not properly before this Board or are within the concurrent jurisdiction of the county and state Boards, such as observers entering the voting enclosure before the polls open. He said this Board has gone as far as it can go in responding. He is looking to hear some reciprocity here. He said the Board has acknowledged your questions and has gotten back to you on some of them. It would be nice to hear you acknowledge that we have provided responses, and while you may not like the answers you received, we have been responsive. Mr. Rothlein said he can’t say that because you have not been responsive. Some of the responses address matters not in the report or the February 15 email. Secretary Miller thanked Mr. Rothlein and those who spoke in response to his comments. He asked if there is anyone else who wished to speak. Deborah Dicks-Maxwell, resident of New Hanover County and current State President of the NAACP, said she thanked the Board for this process. She is concerned that there are only five Board Minutes 03/15/20228 Page | 3 early voting sites, where is the sixth site that is usually open? As you move toward the November election, please be aware that this county has only 11 zip codes but by some predetermined way, there are three early voting sites in one zip code. That is not acceptable. She requested the Board do their due diligence to find other places. It puts pressure on those who lack transportation. She said she did not know she could file a complaint with the Board, but if it happens again, she will. Secretary Miller asked Ms. Dicks-Maxwell if she wanted the Board to go through the process for selecting the early voting sites and she said yes. She said in the last election you considered the Scottish Rite building across from DSS (Department of Social Services) and after the comment period ended, you went to the Moose Lodge. Director Hunter-Havens said the factor in that decision was the cost. Ms. Dicks-Maxwell said no one ever said what the cost was. She came to the next meeting to offer other alternatives given the concerns with COVID which is still present. The Moose Lodge had limited parking, was not visible, and was one of three sites on the same side of town. Secretary Miller said he recalls that conversation and that the cost was $12,000. Director Hunter-Havens said she thought the cost was discussed during that meeting, but she might be mistaken. Secretary Miller called on Director Hunter-Havens to review the 2022 Primary early voting sites. She said the sites are the Northeast Library, as the office site; Cape Fear Community College Health Sciences Building on the downtown campus; Cape Fear Community College North Campus McKeithan Center; Senior Resource Center; and Carolina Beach Town Hall Police Training Room, a site in previous elections. During elections prior to 2020, there also were five early voting sites. Under the 2020 emergency order in 2020, we expanded to nine sites to provide appropriate social distancing. Matthew Emborsky thanked the Board for their public service. He asked about New Hanover County’s election results by precinct on the NCSBE (North Carolina State Board of Elections) website. This data is important because the precinct is the foundation of the election system. It appears the results were reported by precinct until 2018, including One Stop voting and absentee by mail voting. In 2020, 87,000 votes were cast in One Stop and absentee by mail. The public cannot see how those votes break down by precinct. He asked who initiated that change and what prevents NCSE from displaying those results by precinct? What is the plan for making the data available for future elections? Director Hunter-Havens said that after the 2018 election, New Hanover County migrated from using IVOs to ES&S voting systems. The DS-200s are not able to record One Stop ballot results by precinct. During the required 30-day sort, all ballots are rescanned with the data loaded by precinct. NCSBE has this data and she can ask that they post it. The Board concurred. Seeing and hearing no other public attendees wishing to comment, Secretary Miller closed the Public Comment period. 3. DIRECTOR’S REPORT a. Financial Update Director Hunter-Havens reported there is very little change in the budget report from the previous election. She is starting to encumber the big-ticket items such as contracted services and ballot coding for the primary. She anticipates printing and postage to go up over what was anticipated in the budget, depending on the volume of absentee ballots. Overall, the budget is as anticipated through February 2022. The main difference is in the costs for a municipal election from the larger costs of a general primary and election. Another difference is that the municipalities contribute to the costs of the municipal election while the county bears the cost of the general Board Minutes 03/15/20228 Page | 4 elections. Some of the municipal election costs will be offset by these reimbursements from the municipalities. Insurance and bonds item increased because the elections insurance contract was separated from the county’s contract. b. List Maintenance Data provided from the Statewide Elections Information Management System shows New Hanover County • Removed 774 voters from the voter registration rolls in February 2022 consistent with NC Gen. Stat. §163-82.14. • Processed 931 new registration forms, 464 duplicate registration forms, and 854 registration update forms in February. These numbers represent a slight increase in activity over last month, attributable in part to the NCOA process begun in January. Secretary Miller asked the Director to clarify what are duplicate registration. The Director said these are registration forms that are submitted but do not make any corrections or updates to their registration information already in the registration rolls. Nevertheless, the duplicate form is linked to the voter’s record and counts as a contact with that voter in determining active voter status. 4. STATUTORILY-REQUIRED BUSINESS a. Resolution to Adopt a Time for Counting Absentee Ballots Director Hunter-Havens presented a resolution for the Board to consider adopting times for counting and tabulating the approved absentee ballots, proposing to set the times for 2:00 p.m. on May 17 and May 26, as required by NC Gen. Stat. §163-182.2(a)(4) and §163-234(2) and (11). The statute requires the Board to meet at 5:00 p.m. on Election Day but permits the Board to select a time between 2:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Election Day to allow sufficient time to review, approve and count absentee ballots received as of 5:00 p.m. the day before and be available to upload to SBE when polls close at 7:30 p.m. She recommends meeting at 2:00 p.m. to allow plenty of time for the careful processing and tabulating of the approved absentee ballots. Member Kemp moved adoption of the resolution as presented, second by Member Hunter. Hearing no further discussion, Secretary Miller called for the vote. Motion carried unanimously. b. 2022 Primary Elections Notice County Boards of Election are required to place a legal notice of an election in a newspaper of general circulation to inform voters of the upcoming election. The notice must run once a week beginning twenty days before the voter registration deadline and posted on the courthouse door. In addition to the information on the upcoming election, the notice must include information about: • The 2022 Primary Election Absentee One-Stop Voting period. • Times for the review of absentee ballot applications (both the required and any additional times and dates); and • Times and dates for counting of absentee ballots. Board Minutes 03/15/20228 Page | 5 This notice does not satisfy the legal notice requirement for changing the time of counting absentee ballots under NC Gen. Stat. §§163-234(2) and (11) which must be published to run once weekly during the two-week period prior to the election. Member Kemp moved approval of the Notice as presented, second by Member Hunter. After discussion of suggestions for highlighting the One-Stop voting locations, which the Director said she would investigate for options and costs, the motion carried unanimously. c. 2021-2023 Appointment of Chief Judges and Judges Secretary Miller called for review and discussion of the recommended 2021-2023 Chief Judge and Judge appointments and asked the Director to present her report. Director Hunter-Havens presented a list of recommended appointments to fill known vacancies as of the March 1 administrative deadline based on recommendations received from the Democratic and Republican parties. Six of the vacancies are due to resignations. With the consent of the Board, the Director proceeded through the recommendations by precinct. These are appointments to be made by the Chair pursuant to NC Gen. Stat. §163-41(d). • CF02: The appointed Judge, a non-resident Democrat transfer, resigned in early 2022. The Democratic Party has nominated a non-resident Democrat transfer, who has prior election official experience, to serve. There are no other non-resident transfers currently serving in CF02, conforming to the requirement of not more than one non-resident transfer serving in a precinct. A Democrat and a Republican serve in the other two positions. • H04: The appointed Chief Judge, a non-resident Democrat transfer has resigned after accepting employment on the staff of the County Board of Elections. The Democratic Party has nominated a non-resident Democrat transfer whose on-boarding process is not yet completed. He has become ineligible to serve because his wife filed as a candidate for NC House District 20. • H05: The appointed Judge, a resident Democrat, resigned due to moving out of this county. The Democratic Party has nominated a resident Democrat who is in the process of on-boarding. • H10: The hold-over Democrat Chief Judge appointee has resigned due to moving out of state. The Democratic Party has nominated a resident Democrat. The Republican Party nominated a non-resident Republican transfer. The appointed judges are a Democrat and an Unaffiliated. The Board heard from the Republican Party and Democratic Party representatives attending the meeting concerning the qualification of their respective nominees. • M04: There are presently no vacant appointments in this precinct. The Democratic Party nominated a non-resident Democrat transfer to serve as Chief Judge in M04. All the current appointees are residents of the precinct, one Republican Chief Judge, one Unaffiliated Judge, and one Republican Judge. • W03: Due to a data entry error, an unaffiliated non-resident transfer was appointed as a Judge for the 2021 Municipal election. The appointed Chief Judge is also a non-resident transfer, which voids the appointment of a second non-resident transfer. The data entry error incorrectly recorded the wrong precinct of residence as W03 when the correct precinct of residence was M03. The appointee was informed of the error and that the appointment is void and agreed to resign the appointment. The Democratic Party nominated a resident Democrat to fill the position. Member Kemp said the appointee being replaced is unaffiliated. Shouldn’t the replacement appointee also be unaffiliated? Deputy Director Dawkins said that no unaffiliated resident officials are willing to serve, Board Minutes 03/15/20228 Page | 6 and the resident Democrat is. The Chief Judge is a Democrat and the other Judge is unaffiliated. • W08: A resident Democrat served as a Judge in 2021, but has subsequently moved out of the precinct. The hold-over appointed Chief Judge is a non-resident transfer and a Republican Judge was appointed to serve in 2021. The Chief Judge declined to resign the appointment. The Judge’s appointment is void because there is only one non-resident transfer allowed per precinct. The Democratic Party has nominated a resident of W08 to fill the open Judge position. She is not eligible to serve in the primary because she did not complete the on-boarding process before the administrative deadline, but she is eligible for appointment as a Judge. • W13: The Chief Judge, a non-resident transfer Democrat who is a hold-over appointment, does not wish to resign her position; she has served as Chief Judge in W13 in previous elections. The Board also appointed a non-resident transfer Republican Party nominee to serve as the second Judge. The Chair appointed a non-resident Democrat Judge. Due to the excess of non-resident appointments, there are two vacancies in the Judge positions. Member Kemp noted that the Chief Judge is a resident of H04 where the chief judge position is currently vacant and asked if the W13 appointee could be reassigned to H04. Director Hunter-Havens said the W13 Chief Judge declined to resign and she is reluctant to force a move when she has served well in W13 in prior elections. She retains the position because the Board has not appointed a replacement. • W17: In a recent development, the Democrat Judge has resigned the appointment because she has filed her notice of candidacy, making her ineligible to serve. The Chief Judge is an unaffiliated resident appointee and the other Judge is a resident Republican appointee. • W24: The Board appointed a non-resident transfer Democrat Chief Judge for the 2021- 23 term. Both appointed Judges resigned this year. The Republican Party nominated a non-resident transfer Republican to fill a position, which would result in an excess on non-resident transfer appointments. Director Hunter-Havens said that the position of Chief Judge is the most challenging to fill because the appointed Judges are reluctant to accept the Chief Judge position. Secretary Miller said that for several positions where the Chair can make the appointments, nominees are available if they complete the on-boarding process, and he encourages the party representatives to follow up with their nominees to finish on-boarding. Member Hunter said she assumed the reported resignations came as a result of the staff reaching out to the appointees and commended the staff for a job well done in that regard. Deputy Director Dawkins confirmed the on-boarding deadline is April 1. Member Kemp asked for clarification that the Chair will make the appointments as he had not heard that. Secretary Miller said that is noted in the Board agenda packet as within the Chair’s statutory authority. Member Kemp asked if this is different from what the Board did in the municipal elections. Director Hunter-Havens said this is the same process under NC Gen. Stat. §163-41(d), where the appointee has resigned the appointment. Member Kemp asked whether the Chair would also make appointments of judges where the appointee has not resigned but is not able to serve in the upcoming election? Director Hunter-Havens said the appointee in that case still holds the appointment even though not able to serve in a specific election. That is the situation requiring administrative assignments to staff the judge positions. Member Kemp asked for the General Statutes citation, a numbered memo, or written guidance from the State Board that cites authority for county board staff to make administrative assignments. Director Hunter- Havens said that was discussed previously. The staff is not making appointments but rather is staffing the positions to assure adequate staffing of the precincts for election day. This is a Board Minutes 03/15/20228 Page | 7 standard process followed by all county boards of elections. Secretary Miller asked Chair Carter whether he has a response to these questions based on his research. Chair Carter said he is not prepared to comment and would rather have the Board finish their discussion before he comments on his appointments. Secretary Miller asked Member Kemp if he has further questions. Member Kemp said the Board has a process to address vacancies that occur because the appointee is not able to serve in a particular election. When that occurs after the on-boarding process deadline, it is impossible for the party chairs to make their nominations on filling those positions. The deadlines disable the party chairs from filling their statutory role in filling those positions. Director Hunter-Havens said she understands his concern, but these are administrative deadlines established by the County and are part of the election cycle of staffing and training for the precinct positions. The staff is making a temporary administrative assignment, not appointing judges. Member Kemp asked if the Director is constrained by the one-transfer rule in making the assignments. Director Hunter- Havens said staff makes every effort to abide by the one-transfer rule and bipartisan representation whenever possible, as addressed in NC Gen. Stat. 163-41(c), last paragraph. Her goal is to fill out the reserve pool of precinct officials for this purpose and thanked the parties for their efforts in recruiting officials to serve in this way. Member Hunter said the Director and staff are doing a good job of establishing this pool of officials and to have folks who have gone through the process of on-boarding and training to be available to staff voting sites and precincts. Member Bryan asked about the timeframe of the onboarding process. Director Hunter-Havens said the precinct officials process starts with the online application which may be completed and submitted at any time. The applicant is invited to an information session over Zoom, which is a brief discussion with the applicant about the duties and expectations of the position and answer questions the applicant may have. From there the applicant is sent directions about completing the County employment forms and, once the on-boarding process is completed, is scheduled for training. Member Bryan asked if the staff could ask the County to accommodate the unique needs of the Board of Elections. Director Hunter-Havens said she works with Human Resources on this process continuously, and the limitation is the capacity of Human Resources to manage elections needs alongside the county-wide employment processes. Deputy Director Dawkins added that the administrative deadline for interviews is in part driven by the same staff doing the interviews must then be able to move into the timely training and assigning of the officials beginning four to six weeks out from the opening of in person One Stop voting and Election Day. The entire process is intended to build knowledge, skills, and team chemistry, with high quality training to minimize mistakes. Member Bryan asked if other counties are following the same process. Deputy Director Dawkins said the processes are essentially the same, based on SBE training standards. The differences are due to the varying scale from one county to another based on the number of officials involved. Where one county staffs precincts with five or six officials, this county needs ten officials to operate precincts. Secretary Miller noted that the Board has supported the staff’s requests for additional resources to support operations. Discussion returned to the question of the statutory authority to make administrative assignments, with Member Kemp noting that the statute applies the one-transfer official per precinct to appointments, not assignments. It seems to him that the Chair can, under (d), could allow the Director to make administrative assignments, freeing the staff from the one-transfer per precinct constraint. Director Hunter-Havens said she understood how Member Kemp might read the statute that way. But the guidance from the State Board is to honor the statutory guidelines. Member Kemp said his objective in his suggestion is that it is much easier to have a pool of qualified, trained judges county-wide than to have qualified, trained judges for every precinct. It is almost impossible to ask someone to step up when there is no opening and there may not be an opening. He said that is an absurd ask. Board Minutes 03/15/20228 Page | 8 Secretary Miller called on audience member Jules Rothlein who asked to speak to the discussion. Mr. Rothlein said he understood before this meeting the chief judge is H10 is vacant, where there are one resident Unaffiliated judge and one resident Democratic judge are appointed. The Republican Party nominated as a transfer chief judge someone with wide election experience in Forsyth County, North Carolina. He said he does not understand why she is not eligible to be considered. Member Hunter clarified that no one said the Republican nominee could not be considered. Rather there is another possible nominee, a resident Democrat, who is available. Mr. Rothlein said that would have H10 staffed by two Democrats and one Unaffiliated judge, when the Board can appoint a truly balanced precinct by appointing a transfer Republican who is more experienced than the other two appointees and available. Member Hunter noted that the statute’s primary criterion is appointing judges who live in the precinct, not party affiliation. Mr. Rothlein turned to the appointments for W08, where the chief judge and the other judge reside in the precinct. The Republican Party nominated a transfer Republican for appointment who served in the municipal election, but he now is not eligible because another appointee is also a transfer. He should not have been appointed. Director Hunter-Havens explained that the chief judge is also a transfer hold-over appointee who continues until the Board appoints her successor. The appointed judge is a resident of W08. The presence of the appointed transfer hold-over chief judge voids the appointment of a second non-resident transfer nominated by the Republican Party. Mr. Rothlein demanded to know when and how the Republican transfer judge was informed his services are not needed. Secretary Miller said that is an open question still. He said the staff has explained that there are two appointments that are voided by the one-transfer rule as the staff has clearly explained to the Board. The Board has not yet responded to that information sufficiently for the staff to inform the two appointees that their appointments are void and for the Board to understand their options. Member Kemp restated the experience of the Republican chief judge nominee for H10 for the benefit of the Chair. Secretary Miller called on Chair Carter for his comments. Chair Carter thanked Secretary Miller for assuming the gavel for this meeting while he attends virtually; all those who have put their names forward for appointment as election officials; and the staff, especially the Director and Deputy Director, for all their time and effort in working and meeting with the parties on recruiting election officials. Chair Carter moved that staff notify Richard Wills (W13) and Anne Randall (W08) that their appointments as judges are void ab initio, second by Secretary Miller. Member Hunter asked if the State Board has provided any guidance on this question. Director Hunter-Havens said the guidance is that, once the appointment of excess transfers became apparent, it is up to the county board to determine how to proceed. Secretary Miller understands the motion to mean promptly. Motion carried unanimously. Chair Carter said he has full confidence that all election officials understand their duty to check their party affiliation at the door before they come to work for the Board of Elections. He has that degree of confidence in all precincts, regardless of party affiliations among the judges. Chair Carter briefly reviewed his understanding of NC Gen. Stat. §163-41. Section (a) contains a general description of the office of precinct officials, including that they are appointed in August of odd-numbered years for two-year terms and serve until their successors are appointed. They have the duty to conduct the elections within their precinct. They must reside in the county, be literate, and of good repute. Not more than one judge may belong to the same party as the chief judge. Thus, in subsection (a), the broadest section of this statue, the role of political party is Board Minutes 03/15/20228 Page | 9 explicitly taken into account, whereas the question of residency within a particular precinct is not mentioned. Chair Carter said subsection (b) disqualifies elected officials, candidates, officers of political parties, and certain other interested parties. It takes into account political party, but it does not take into account residency. It provides a process whereby the board of elections generally appoints precinct officials nominated by the county parties in a three-step process. First, if the county parties nominate resident voters of the precinct, the board must appoint them. Second, the board must diligently attempt to appoint resident voters who are not nominated by the party. Only then may the board move to step three and appoint non-residents of the precinct. In addition, there are several overriding requirements in subsection (c): wherever possible, the board must assure that no precinct has three judges from the same party; in no instance shall the board appoint a majority of non-residents to the three positions. He said this is the residency restriction and the only time in this statute that a prohibition on more than one non-resident judge is mentioned. He said subsection (c) mentions “party” six times, while residency in the precinct is mentioned four times. It is true that residents of the precinct are accorded a higher priority in the board’s initial appointments under steps one and two, but only receive the highest priority if they are nominated by a party. He said subsection (d) deals with filling vacancies. If a precinct official resigns, the chair shall appoint a replacement, which is what we are doing today. In the first paragraph, second sentence, it says, if possible, the chair shall consult with the chair of the political party of the vacating official. In most cases, I can do this. I cannot do that in two precincts where the vacating official is an Unaffiliated voter, as there is no county chair to consult. If the vacating official is a member of a party, subsection (d), first paragraph, provides a three-step process. If the chair of the political party nominates a resident of the precinct, the chair must appoint that person. If the chair is not able to confer with the party chair, or the party chair does not nominate a resident of the precinct, the chair must nevertheless appoint an official of the same party as the vacating official. Thus, if subsection (d) operates normally, when a vacating official affiliates with one of the recognized parties, then it is clear that party affiliation is more important than residency in the precinct when the chair makes appointments to fill a vacancy. The first rule in the first paragraph is conditional. It depends on a condition precedent. The second part is iron-clad: under no circumstances may the chair appoint a person of a different political party. The chair is bound by the law to appoint someone of the same party. Another important thing to note in subsection (d): if the chair does not appoint a person nominated by a political party chair, the term of the appointee shall expire at the conclusion of the next canvass. The Chair believes that the first paragraph of subsection (d) weighs party affiliation far more heavily than precinct residency. He said the second paragraph of subsection (d) addresses vacancies that occur on Election Day. Again, party affiliation is considered while residency in the precinct is not. That concludes the Chair’s summary of the statute and proceeded to make a couple of other points before making his findings of fact and making his appointments. He has reviewed some pertinent case law and highlighted four cases: • Graham County Board of Elections, NC Ct. of Appeals (2011): stands for the proposition that all government entities within North Carolina depend on the General Assembly for their existence and powers. The General Assembly has the constitutional authority to structure the legal relationship between those entities. This case spoke to the Chair because it says that the General Assembly created the State Board of Elections and vested Board Minutes 03/15/20228 Page | 10 it with its powers. The State Board of Elections created county boards of elections and vested them with their powers. The General Assembly created the position of State Director and vested that position with its powers. The General Assembly created the position of county director of elections and vested that office with certain powers. And the General Assembly created the office of Chair of the county board of elections and vested it with certain powers. The case says that it is the General Assembly that allocates powers among these different institutional actors involved with the administration of elections. • Bergen (1938) was the first in a long line of cases that stands for the proposition that the State Board of Elections has general supervisory authority over the other institutional actors involved in the administration of elections. That supervisory authority is very broad. However, the North Carolina Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the State Board of Elections’ supervisory authority does not allow it to make requirements that are equivalent to statute. • Strickland, NC Supreme Court (1960) held that a State Board of Elections rule is invalid to the extent that it conflicts with the statute giving the county board of elections its power and authority. • The NC Supreme Court (1948) held that in instances where the State Board of Elections professes to act by regulation but actually adds to the statutory requirements, such action will be held invalid. The Chair said these are some of the cases that guide his decisions. In addition, he has spoken with several people involved in the election administration in other counties and gotten their perspectives on the guidance from the State Board of Election that residency is the most important requirement. For all the reasons he has cited, he finds the State Board guidance unpersuasive. While the State Board can issue directives, he does not find this guidance to be a directive and is not bound to follow it. He spoke with someone deeply involved in drafting this legislation and other legislation, shared his thoughts about the statute, and he largely agreed with the Chair’s perspectives. The Chair said he will provide the following information and appointments in a written memo shortly. The Chair discussed the following findings and appointments pursuant to NC Gen. Stat. §163-41(d): • CF02: Irving Trust has resigned his appointment as a precinct official. As a matter of law, a vacancy exists in this appointment. Mr. Trust is a Democrat and as a matter of law must be replaced by a Democrat. The Chair of the Democratic Party has nominated Valerie Smith who is not a resident of the precinct. The Chair is not compelled to appoint Ms. Smith, but rather the law requires only that a Democrat must be appointed. However, in his discretion, the Chair appoints Valerie Smith as judge in CF02. • H04: Jessica O’Neill has resigned as Chief Judge. He finds as a matter of law that a vacancy exists in H04. Since Ms. O’Neill is a Democrat, the Chair must appoint a Democrat to fill this vacancy. The Chair of the Democratic Party has nominated John Mark DeLoach who is not a resident of the precinct. The Chair is not compelled to appoint Mr. DeLoach, but rather the law requires only that a Democrat must be appointed. However, in his discretion, the Chair declines to make an appointment to this position at this time. • H05: Deborah Hesse has resigned as a precinct official. He finds as a matter of law that a vacancy exists in H05. He finds that Ms. Hesse is a Democrat and the Chair must appoint a Democrat to fill this vacancy. The Chair of the Democratic Party has Board Minutes 03/15/20228 Page | 11 nominated Peter Bailey who is a resident of the precinct. He concludes by law that he must appoint Mr. Bailey, and he so appoints Mr. Bailey as judge in H05. • W08: Amy Gilman has resigned her office as a precinct official. He concludes as a matter of law that a vacancy exists in W08. He finds that Ms. Gilman is a Democrat and he must appoint a Democrat to fill this vacancy. The Chair of the Democratic Party has nominated Dorothy Hodder who is a resident of the precinct. He concludes by law that he must appoint Ms. Hodder, and he so appoints Ms. Hodder as judge in W08. If she does not complete the administrative steps timely, she will be unable to serve in the primary but nonetheless holds the appointment. • W13 and W24: By his interpretation of the statute, the rule prohibiting more than one non-resident transfer precinct official only applies to appointments of the Board under subsection (c). However, he defers to the State Board of Elections interpretation of the statute on this point. Therefore, in his discretion and based upon that deference, he declines to make any appointments to these positions in W13 and W24 at this time. • H10: Amy Christoff has resigned her office as chief judge. He concludes as a matter of law that a vacancy exists in H10. He finds that Ms. Christoff is Unaffiliated. He concludes that the second and third sentences of subsection (d) are rendered absurd and inoperative under the circumstances. He concludes that he is not compelled to appoint a Republican nor compelled to appoint a Democrat nor compelled to appoint an Unaffiliated voter. Instead, he has discretion to appoint a chief judge of any affiliation. The Chair of the Democratic Party has nominated Faye Jacobs, a resident of the precinct. The Chair of the Republican Party has nominated Lori Apple, who is not a resident of the precinct. Both judges currently serving in H10 are both residents of the precinct. He concludes he has the discretion to appoint a resident or a non-resident as chief judge in this precinct. He concludes he is not compelled to appoint either Ms. Apple or Ms. Jacobs, and will come back to that appointment. • W03: Luther Wedekind has resigned his office as a precinct official. He concludes as a matter of law that a vacancy exists in W03. He finds that Mr. Wedekind is Unaffiliated. He concludes that the second and third sentences of subsection (d) are rendered absurd and inoperative under the circumstances. He concludes that he is not compelled to appoint a Republican nor compelled to appoint a Democrat nor compelled to appoint an Unaffiliated voter. Instead, he has discretion to appoint a chief judge of any affiliation. The Chair of the Democratic Party has nominated Dana Hamerski, a resident of the precinct. The Chair of the Republican Party has not nominated anyone for this vacancy. He finds that one registered Democrat and one registered Republican are already appointed to W03. Neither is a non-resident transfer. Returning to H10, he finds that the only bases for deciding that a Democrat should be appointed to the vacancy are (1) Governor Cooper is a Democrat, or (2) a majority of the Board are Democrats. Both require taking into account party considerations. The only basis he finds for appointing the Republican nominee is that there are no other Republicans appointed to serve in H10, again requiring taking into account party considerations. He finds there is a long-standing tradition observed for many decades in many, if not most, counties in North Carolina, that the chief judge is generally a member of the same political party as the sitting Governor. He finds there is a long-standing tradition observed for many decades in many, if not most, counties in North Carolina, that there are generally one registered Democrat and one registered Republican serving as judge or chief judge in each precinct. He finds both long-standing traditions are entirely valid, in and of themselves, and entirely valid for the Chair to consider in exercising discretion to make these two appointments. He has considered both traditions carefully. He also recognizes the Director and her staff strongly prefer a resident, not only because Board Minutes 03/15/20228 Page | 12 that is the State Board’s guidance, but for practical reasons, making it easier to replace if one of the three judges is temporarily or permanently unable to serve. With all of that in mind, he is persuaded that Ms. Apple’s prior service in Forsyth County renders her the most qualified nominee to be appointed chief judge in H10 with an additional benefit of there being one registered Democrat and one registered Republican serving as election officials in H10. With respect to W03, Ms. Hamerski is the most qualified and suitable person to be appointed and he appoints her as judge in W03. The Chair expressed his thanks to all who put their names forward. Nominees who were not appointed this time, should they be willing to serve in the future, should be considered and even given priority. He feels the same about Ms. Randall and Mr. Wills. Having completed his comments, the Chair invited any questions and discussion from the Board. Director Hunter-Havens said she has one question of the Chair for clarification. Based on your analysis in appointing the chief judge for H10, you are appointing a non-resident transfer appointee as chief judge when a resident appointee is also recommended. Chair Carter said that is correct. Member Kemp requested the Chair designate the terms for the appointments he announced so we know when the appointments expire. Chair Carter said all but the last two appointments, Ms. Apple and Ms. Hamerski, serve until their successors are appointed. The final two appointments run through the canvass of the primary election in May. Secretary Miller asked why the appointment of Ms. Hamerski, a resident of W03, does not also continue until a successor is appointed. Chair Carter said he stands corrected, as a resident of the precinct, she serves until her successor is appointed. Secretary Miller said he has a more general question about judge appointments for the Chair. In the findings, you are disagreeing that residency in the precinct is a primary consideration as stated in the State Board’s guidance. Chair Carter said he disagrees with that guidance, that the statute does not come anywhere close to supporting that statement, that the most important qualification for a chief judge or judge is residence in the precinct. That is not supported by the statute, and you might ask why I choose to defer to the State Board of Elections on the question of whether as Chair I can appoint more than one non-resident judge but choose not to defer to the State Board on the question of whether residency is the primary factor to consider. He said that is because I have found that several other counties I consider our peers treat partisan affiliation equally or more strongly than residency. Between my reading of the statute and the practice in other counties, I think I am on very strong ground here. There may be some procedure by which some interested party could appeal my decision to the State Board of Elections. I am not aware of such a procedure but would not be surprised that it exists. And some interested party may be able to seek relief from a court if displeased with my appointments. I have given the matter a lot of thought and feel my decisions come down in a place that is just and fair. One thing we all must keep in mind is that we will disagree about things from time to time. It is how we handle that disagreement that truly defines us. Member Hunter said she wanted to make clear that these are Chair Carter’s decisions and his analysis, and she does not agree with that analysis, but he is the chair, and he gets to make these decisions. She said she just want to be clear that it is not reflective of the Board’s opinion and certainly not my opinion. Hearing no further discussion from the Board members, Secretary Miller called for any general discussion. Member Kemp asked for a few minutes to reflect on what the Chair has said to see if Board Minutes 03/15/20228 Page | 13 he has any follow-up questions before proceeding, or circle back to this item after the General Discussion. 5. GENERAL DISCUSSION Director Hunter-Havens reported that staff is in the process of moving all equipment and supplies to the new warehouse facility, where testing is scheduled to begin during the first ten days of April. Seating for viewing testing will be very limited. Anyone who wants to observe may notify her and she plans to notify the party chairs of the dates and times when the schedule is known. Set up will be like that used previously, with ability to view that testing is occurring but with line of sight and ability to get close to the machines extremely limited and protected, following the guidance of the State Board. Member Hunter asked if there is an updated calendar of meetings. Director Hunter-Havens said there is for all but the Election Day counting of ballots meeting time. By tomorrow that will be updated to 2:00 p.m. and posted. She agreed to email the updated calendar to the Board for their calendars. Secretary Miller noted that the previous minutes were tabled, and the minutes of the last meeting were not on the agenda, with the Chair wanting to make some corrections and revisions. Director Hunter-Havens said the minutes will be updated and presented as soon as possible. The office is now gearing up for the primary and work will be prioritized as best we can. Member Kemp asked if it is possible to have a short version that could be temporary covering major motions without all the discussion detail? Director Hunter-Havens said either version requires a fair amount of work to get to that point, as it is necessary to go through the detail. Ms. Geiszler- Ludlum is juggling assisting the candidates with campaign finance filing and requirements of reporting to the State Board with drafting the minutes. Member Kemp said it seems to him that the law requires the secretary to the board to assure the timeliness of meeting minutes. He recognizes we have gone from minutes prepared from notes to minutes prepared from the meeting recording, and that is one of the reasons the process takes much longer and the minutes are much longer. He wondered whether there is a middle ground where the Board is not reviewing and approving minutes months after the meeting took place. Is it a matter of needing additional resources or support for that? Director Hunter-Havens said the goal is to get the minutes ready for the next Board meeting. This Board has tabled and revised minutes, pushing their consideration to the next meeting with a cumulative effect. We try to streamline the process as best we can. Given the length and complexity of recent Board meetings, it is important to capture the detail and nuance of the discussion. We will continue to work as quickly as possible to provide timely minutes, which is challenging given the length and complexity of the meetings. Secretary Miller asked if the Board was ready to present any final questions about the Chair’s appointments. Chair Carter said, before that, he had one item for discussion, regarding the questions from a couple of months ago raised by representatives of the Republican Party regarding the list maintenance process. He said Director Hunter-Havens provided the Board with a comprehensive overview of the list maintenance processes, which is so comprehensive as to be dense and took him a while to get through it. It contains a lot of relevant information. Chair Carter broke the information down and placed it into three-ring binders and he is developing a frequently asked questions document coming out of his discussions with Member Kemp and the Republican Party representatives which he will provide when done, subject to review by the Director and the State Board. He offered the binders to the Board members for their reference. Secretary Miller called on Member Kemp for any questions for Chair Carter. Member Kemp asked the Chair to review his appointment in W03. Specifically, Member Kemp said he Board Minutes 03/15/20228 Page | 14 understood the vacant position was previously held by an Unaffiliated judge. Chair Carter confirmed that is correct. Mr. Kemp asked then what is the term of that appointment? Chair Carter said the term is until the successor is appointed, based on §163-41(d), first paragraph, last sentence: If the chairman of the county board of elections did not appoint a person upon recommendation of the chairman of the party to fill such a vacancy, then the term of office of the person appointed to fill the vacancy shall expire upon the conclusion of the next canvass …. Chair Carter said he appointed Ms. Hamerski upon the recommendation of the chair of the Democratic Party, so the cited limitation on the term does not apply. Member Kemp cited the two sentences that precede the sentence cited by the Chair: If at all possible, the chairman of the county board of elections shall consult with the county chairman of the political party of the vacating official, and if the chairman of the county political party nominates a qualified voter of that precinct to fill the vacancy, the chairman of the county board of elections shall appoint that person. In filling such a vacancy, the chairman shall appoint a person who belongs to the same political party as that to which the vacating member belonged when appointed. He said the interpretation should be that the term expires at the end of the canvass. Chair Carter said he sees Member Kemp’s construction and agreed to take the question under advisement. Chair Carter asked Director Hunter-Havens to reach out to the State Board of Elections on that question. She agreed to submit the question. Member Kemp said that would clarify whether “Unaffiliated” is a political party, which he does not believe it is. Chair Carter said that is not the question, the question is whether the phrase, “the chairman of the party”, refers back to the chair of the party of the vacating official. He said it is a matter of grammar and statutory construction so we should let the State Board look at it. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further discussion, Member Hunter moved that the meeting be adjourned at 7:24 p.m., second by Member Bryan. Motion passed unanimously. The next Board meeting is scheduled to be held on April 12, 202, at 5:00 p.m., to consider absentee ballots, 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 04/12/2022 Page | 1 SPECIAL MEETING New Hanover County Board of Elections April 12, 2022 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 Jenna Dahlgren, Elections Logistics Specialist Joan Geiszler-Ludlum, Administrative Technician Jessica O’Neill, Elections Program and Outreach Coordinator Beth Pugh, Elections Specialist Visitors: Sheryl Kelly, Assistant County Manager Public Attendees: Bob Gatewood; Mike Pascarell; Matthew Emborsky, GOP; Julius Rothlein, NHC GOP. Virtual attendees: Loraine Buker; Tyler Daye. 1. MEETING OPENING a. Call to Order Chair Carter called the meeting to order at 5:02 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. b. Preliminary Announcements Chair Carter reminded the audience to silence their cell phones and that the meeting is being recorded and live streamed. c. Pledge of Allegiance Chair Carter invited all in attendance to rise and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Board Minutes 04/12/2022 Page | 2 d. Approval of Agenda Member Kemp moved that the agenda be approved as submitted, second by Member Hunter. Motion carried unanimously. e. Approval of Minutes Member Kemp moved that the minutes of the 02/15/2022 Board meeting be approved as corrected, second by Member Hunter. Motion carried unanimously. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT AND QUESTION PERIOD Chair Carter called on the public in-person attendees for their comments or questions regarding matters before the Board, limited to two minutes each, and a total time of twenty minutes maximum. He reminded speakers to yield to the Board Members or Director to respond to the question. Chair Carter said he has received comments from Matthew Emborsky by email on March 24. He asked Mr. Emborsky if he wanted to speak to the emailed questions. Mr. Emborsky asked about accessing One Stop results by precinct for the 2020 election. He said these are available on the State Board website through 2018 but not for 2020. He feels it is important to have those results available by the time election results are certified on the canvass date. He said he observed the testing for the DS-850 yesterday and complimented the Director and staff for their responsive answers to questions and explanations of the process. His feedback from observing testing is to request earlier and wider notice of testing dates. Notice is sent to the party chairs, but he is concerned that there is no notice to unaffiliated voters. He is concerned that Numbered Memo 2022-03 addresses mask mandates for the upcoming primary and general elections, specifically paragraphs 5, 6, and 8, which raise equal protection concerns with differences between One Stop workers and election officials. He noted a lot of attention has been given to the presence of observers during the opening of the polls. While there is progress, a slight concern remains with the instructions to poll workers and observers where the wording appears more restrictive than the previous guidance. Director Hunter-Havens said the most recent guidance is what will be followed during the primary. Member Kemp said he does not recall seeing any authority for members of the public to observe the opening and closing of the polls in the Director’s recent email of a week ago. He wondered if something more formal is needed. Chair Carter asked if he meant something more than the two-sided observer’s document. Member Kemp said something similar is needed for the public who want to watch the opening and closing of the polls. The updated guidance is treating observers as members of the public for purposes of entering to see the opening and closing. Director Hunter-Havens said the revised guidance says that observers may have equivalent access as members of the public do during opening and closing of the polls. Member Kemp said he must have been looking at a previous version. Mr. Emborsky finally asked if there is updated guidance for electioneering at the Cape Fear Community College sites. Director Hunter-Havens said she is working with CFCC Board Minutes 04/12/2022 Page | 3 staff for clarification of what is permitted at both the downtown and North Campus sites and with UNCW for that campus site under their campus policies. Member Kemp said he recalled when approving polling places, the Board receives information about constraints on electioneering such as signage limitations. He asked if either the UNCW or CFCC locations have indicated their concerns about outside electioneering in that process. The Director said that neither site restricts electioneering but have in place campus-wide polices on placing tents, tables and signs. These are public facilities and cannot prohibit electioneering. Member Kemp asked if those facilities have given that information when approached about using their facilities. The Director said it has not been provided but it is apparent there is a need to clarify those policies. She is working on getting that information and communicating it through FAQs on electioneering. Mr. Gatewood asked for clarification as to what machine Mr. Emborsky observed during testing. Director Hunter-Havens said he saw testing of the DS-850 used during the absentee meetings and for recounts. Seeing and hearing no other public or virtual attendees wishing to comment, Chair Carter closed the public comment and question period. 3. STATUTORILY-REQUIRED BUSINESS • Review of Absentee Ballot Applications Chair Carter called for the next item on the agenda and reported the receipt of 37 absentee by mail ballots for review with a staff recommendation to accept them. • 28 civilian ballots • 8 overseas ballots • 1 military ballot Director Hunter-Havens said the recommendation is to review and accept these absentee- by-mail applications at this meeting but hold them for opening and scanning at the next meeting due to the low volume. She is working with the library to secure a space for public review of the absentee by mail envelopes. She will notify the parties of the dates and times once those are scheduled. In response to a question from Member Hunter, the Director said two additional absentee-by-mail ballots have come in. One voter called and requested their ballot be spoiled, which was done. One ballot is outstanding pending cure. A total of 370 ballots have been mailed out so far. Member Bryan asked what defect required cure for the one outstanding ballot. The Director said the voter either signed in the wrong place or is missing the voter’s signature. The cure letter is sent automatically in such a case. The Director introduced Beth Pugh, Elections Specialist, who oversees the absentee process, among other duties. She joined the staff in September 2021. The Board started their review of the absentee by mail return envelopes. Chair Carter reminded the Board members to shield the return envelopes or affidavits from the camera and the public. Board Minutes 04/12/2022 Page | 4 Member Kemp asked to have Mr. Rothlein and Mr. Emborsky stand behind him while he reviewed the absentee by mail return envelopes. Chair Carter said the return envelopes are confidential and can only be reviewed by the Board and staff. Member Kemp said his understanding of confidential is that the information cannot be revealed or captured, but can be observed. Director Hunter-Havens said when she arranges a public review of the container-return envelopes, the absentee number label is still required to be covered from public view. Review of absentee by mail ballots is a board duty. Member Kemp reminded the Board of their action to authorize a staff member to observe him while he reviewed the confidential absentee ballot log to be sure he did not write down any of the information. He is looking for a way to accomplish bipartisan observation in a secure environment. If the camera is the chief concern, we can turn off the camera. Member Hunter said the Board is the required bipartisan reviewers. Member Kemp said he hears that, with the parties requesting to review them, the Board could facilitate that purpose more readily if no notes or pictures are made. Member Hunter said she would be concerned if an unauthorized person were seeing her confidential information, such as driver’s license or social security numbers. It is still protected confidential information. Chair Carter said it would be a departure from past practice and he does not feel comfortable making such a change on the fly. Member Kemp agreed his request is a departure from Board practice. Chair Carter said if Member Kemp wishes to pursue it, he would want to know whether other observers can review the envelopes and under what rules. The Director repeated there will be an opportunity for party representatives to see signatures and publicly available information on the envelopes and absentee ballot logs, but not the confidential information. Approved envelopes will be available prior to primary election day. The absentee register is confidential until election day. In response to a question from Member Bryan, Director Hunter-Havens explained that overseas or military absentee ballots received by email are duplicated by a designated bipartisan duplication team for scanning. Member Kemp asked whether the container- return envelopes under review today were requested by paper request forms as opposed to on-line requests. The Director said that the method of receipt of the request for an absentee ballot is not tracked and there is likely a mixture of the request methods in this batch. Member Kemp said NC Gen. Stat. §163-230.1(f) says that the Board approves or denies “applications for absentee ballots.” This raises his concern, being made more timely, for an opportunity to review the paper forms. Director Hunter-Havens said the application referenced in the statute is what the Board is reviewing now on the return envelope. At no point is the Board responsible for reviewing the requests for absentee ballots. That is done by an administrative process and software that requires all the pertinent information before a label to mail the absentee ballot can be generated. Chair Carter asked to defer further discussion for now so that the review of the container- envelopes can be completed. Discussion may resume when all Board members can fully engage the discussion. Upon completion of the Board’s review, Member Kemp moved approval of 37 absentee by mail ballots, second by Member Hunter. Motion carried unanimously. Board Minutes 04/12/2022 Page | 5 4. OLD BUSINESS • Approval of Minutes (9/1/2021 and 9/14/2021 as revised) Member Kemp moved approval of the minutes of 9/1/2021 and 9/14/2021, second by Member Bryan. Chair Carter said he proposed several revisions to clarify what Board Members or the Director said. He checked that everyone is comfortable with those revisions. He requested two additional changes which were not incorporated after comparing the minutes before the Board with his redline version. He requested that the Board divide the question to address the 9/1/2021 minutes separately from the 9/14/2021 minutes. Motion to approve the 9/1/2021 minutes as revised carried unanimously. Chair Carter moved to table the minutes of 9/14/2021 until later in this meeting, second by Member Kemp. Motion carried unanimously. 5. GENERAL DISCUSSION Chair Carter moved to the General Discussion section of the agenda, noting that two election-related matters have arisen. Chair Carter proposed to take up the matter that Member Kemp raised regarding review of absentee ballot request forms, and then to address the administrative assignments questions Member Kemp raised by email several days ago. a. Review of Absentee Requests Member Kemp referenced §163-230.1 (f) on page 282 in the law book and read the first paragraph as follows: (f) Required Meeting of County Board of Elections. – During the period commencing on the fifth Tuesday before an election, in which absentee ballots are authorized, the county board of elections shall hold one or more public meetings each Tuesday at 5:00 p.m. for the purpose of action on applications for absentee ballots. At these meetings, the county board of elections shall pass upon applications for absentee ballots. He continued reading from the third paragraph of the same section: At the time the county board of elections makes its decision on an application for absentee ballots, the board shall enter in the appropriate column in the register of absentee requests, applications, and ballots issued opposite the name of the applicant a notation of whether the applicant's application was "Approved" or "Disapproved". He reads that to mean that the Board is approving or disapproving applications. At paragraph (f1), the statute talks about “container-return envelopes … with application and voted ballots.” He said the container-return envelope is not the same thing as the application. Member Hunter said that the other statute cited in the agenda materials is §163-229 (b) talks about applications on container-return envelopes. Member Kemp said his point is that the Board should be reviewing both the applications and the container- Board Minutes 04/12/2022 Page | 6 return envelopes contemporaneously, as he understands the statute to require. Chair Carter said we need to be careful about our word choices as the statute uses absentee ballot request forms, applications, and container-return envelopes to mean different things. Member Kemp said he is giving the plain meaning to the words in the statute. Member Hunter asked Member Kemp to state his question. Member Kemp said his question is to clarify the legal basis for denying his request to see the hand-written applications for absentee ballots. Director Hunter-Havens said that requests for absentee ballots come through the portal in electronic form and by paper requests which may be filled out electronically or manually and returned by the voter. Member Kemp said he is not interested in requests coming through the portal as these are electronically verified. He is asking to see the paper request forms. Chair Carter said it would help the discussion if we called the paper forms the absentee ballot request form as distinct from the application/container-return envelope. Member Kemp said he would be happy to use those terms if that is what the code uses. Member Hunter asked if Member Kemp sees a place in the code where it says that any Board member has the right to see the absentee ballot request forms? The question is the legal authority to see what you are asking to see. These are different forms called by different names. Member Bryan said §163-229 references an application on the container-return envelope as a separate thing. He sees the distinction between the container-return envelope and the application. He asked Member Kemp whether he agrees that the last sentence of §163-230.1(f) would require the full Board to approve these and disallows one Board member from reviewing them alone. He read the section: The county board of elections shall constitute the proper official body to pass upon the validity of all applications for absentee ballots received in the county; this function shall not be performed by the chair or any other member of the board individually. Member Kemp said he was not pointing to that. The denial of his request last fall asserted that he did not have authority outside of a board meeting to review it. That is why he raised it in this meeting for absentee ballots so that his request would be timely. Even though the Board authorized him to review, he learned there was a difference of opinion as to what was approved. Chair Carter called on Secretary Miller, who read the last sentence of §163-229(b): “Each container-return envelope shall have printed on it an application ….” He reads that to mean that the application is what appears on the envelope, which clarifies for him the relationship between the application and the container-return envelope. He further noted §163-228 which says the official register of absentee ballots is a confidential document and not a public record until the opening of polls on election day. These two passages lay out the three items under discussion. Member Bryan said he may have found something in §163- 230.1(a) which addresses simultaneous issuance of absentee ballots with application and states that a voter “eligible to vote by absentee ballot … shall complete a request form for an absentee application and absentee ballot ….” This indicates that each of these are separate things in the absentee voting process. Member Hunter said that section refers to §163-228(a) that Secretary Miller referenced also, which addresses the register and the information that goes into it from the requests for absentee ballots. She asked Member Kemp whether that is the register he has asked about. Member Kemp said he is not Board Minutes 04/12/2022 Page | 7 asking about the register; he is asking to see the applications. Chair Carter said he understood Member Kemp is asking to see the request forms Director Hunter-Havens said the register is confidential until election day. The register contains the names and other information from the submitted absentee ballot request forms, when the absentee ballot was issued, and when and how returned. The register is confidential for a couple of security reasons. First, it shows the absentee ballot identification number. Second, it prevents malicious use of the information as to where the absentee ballot is mailed. Chair Carter asked Member Kemp if he is interested in seeing the register. Member Kemp said last year he was authorized to review it which he did while being monitored for 45 minutes. Chair Carter asked if his review took place before or after election day. Member Kemp said it was within two weeks of the Board authorizing him to have access. Director Hunter-Havens said the subsequent guidance from the State Board is that if a Board member is going to review the register and the Board finds that there is official business before this Board which warrants that review, the review must take place during an official public Board meeting. Review by an individual Board member outside of a public meeting is not appropriate. If the Board wants to consider granting such a request again, all five Board members need to be involved during a public meeting. A separate matter is the administrative data processing of absentee request forms. As Member Kemp has noted, some requests come in through the absentee portal, the electronic system that is pushed through a module which verifies the voter is qualified as a resident of New Hanover County to vote the ballot they are requesting and requires verification of the voter’s registration status; and verifies either the voter’s driver's license number or the last four numbers of the voter’s social security number, and date of birth. We are unable to print mailing labels to mail the absentee ballot until all that information is verified. When the voted ballots are returned, the Board reviews the application on the container-return envelope, making their determination to accept or reject the ballot. The date of Board acceptance is entered into the register. Staff have reviewed the returned container-return envelopes and made a recommendation to the Board on approval. Review and approval of the request takes place outside the Board meeting. Chair Carter confirmed with Member Kemp that his request is to review the request for absentee ballot forms that are manually completed. He asked Member Kemp what his purpose is in seeing the forms. Member Kemp said he wants to see them to get a sense of the integrity of the document. People who make crazy and wild assertions about voter integrity have targeted absentee ballots as an area of special concern. He wants to be able to say to them that he has looked at the documents and finds that the process does not raise concerns. He sees this as an opportunity to reassure the public about the integrity of the election process. His requests have been met with responses from the SBE that seem to question his intentions. It is as if he is asking to look at things they do not want me to see. Chair Carter said the Board authorized Member Kemp to see the ballot log last fall but when Member Kemp arrived, he and the Director had different ideas about what was authorized? Member Kemp said he made two requests: to see the absentee ballot log prior to election day and he was told that it is a confidential document until election day. Board Minutes 04/12/2022 Page | 8 He is concerned that anything the Board is responsible for being deemed confidential and Board members cannot see it. Chair Carter asked the Director if that was the request where she said that the Board members can view it together. The Director said such review requires it be done in the context of a legitimate Board purpose. SBE regarded the request as highly irregular as it is not something maintained in the same form by all county boards of election. Member Kemp said his second request was to see the absentee ballot applications, which he now understands as the request forms that were prepared by hand. Director Hunter-Havens said she reached an understanding with Member Kemp that after the election he could review the forms after redaction of confidential information as required by public records law, which he declined to do. Member Kemp said he sees it as the same thing as the Board’s review today of the applications on the container-return envelopes. The application number is confidential information, but it was viewable by the Board members in their review while otherwise screened from public view. Director Hunter-Havens said that document falls under the Board’s duties and responsibilities, making it necessary for the Board to see the application number in order to exercise their duty to review and accept the application on the container-return envelopes. Member Hunter said she sees it listed there but the statute does not specifically give that duty to the Board members, which are otherwise clearly stated in the statute. If it is not included, it falls outside of Board purview and the members are not entitled to see it. It is not even listed as a responsibility or as a delegable responsibility or duty. Her second point is that she does not favor doing things in response to every crazy unfounded allegation or conspiracy theory in the absence of clear concrete evidence. It is not a good use of valuable Board time. She can appreciate the efforts to instill confidence in the process, but she doubts that people with crazy theories will be satisfied by those efforts. Member Kemp said everything the staff does under the code is under the purview of the Board and therefore the Board’s responsibility. Anything delegated to staff is the Board’s responsibility. Chair Carter said it may be helpful to brief the question to give it a little more analysis and invited Member Kemp to bring the discussion back to the next meeting. He said that the Director has certain duties and authorities that are not delegated by the Board, such as campaign finance. Just because the Director has authority to do something, it does not always mean that the Board has the authority to do it too. Director Hunter-Havens said that SBE has focused on the uniform administration of elections across the counties. Staff have user IDs and passwords to access SEIMS and badges that give access to secure spaces and offices. Board members do not have those accesses. SBE delineates those distinctions. County Boards have certain quasi-judicial powers that the staff do not have. There are certain staff functions that require Board review and approval. Member Bryan said that is all reasonable. He cited §163-230.2 (d) which requires the County Board to confirm the voter registration of a voter who requests an absentee ballot. Obviously, the Board is not cross-referencing the voter registration with the absentee ballot request. Director Hunter-Havens said those functions are now done within the SEIMS software. Member Bryan said that while he may not be interested in reviewing the requests, he also feels constrained not to deny such access by another Board member. He is looking for a good reason not to but has not heard one so far. Board Minutes 04/12/2022 Page | 9 Director Hunter-Havens said the request form must be linked electronically to the voter registration, which is now performed by the software. Member Kemp said that is not what he is asking to see. He wants to see the paper form. Member Hunter said the statute says the Board of Elections, which is the office, not the Board. She said that §163-230.2 (f) states “The State Board shall adopt rules for the enforcement of this section.” The statute does not clearly differentiate between the Board and the office. Member Miller said the section seems to be talking about the office. Within the realm of absentee ballots, there is at least one clear marker that Board members ought not to be doing certain things. Member Bryan said that he leans toward the position that, if the Board is obligated to sign off on an administrative process, if there is a list of things Board members are not able to see in this office, he would like to see that. As Board members they are privy to confidential documents in the course of their duties. Director Hunter-Havens said the office has no means to separate paper requests from portal requests for absentee ballots. The office keeps the paper forms that are delivered in person. If the Board wants to see those, the Board has the authority to see them, but not as part of the approval of absentee ballot applications. She would want SBE guidance on that question because it is highly irregular. She has a duty to protect the office and its obligations as custodians of the records. Chair Carter said he does not expect to entertain any motions about this request in this meeting. Member Kemp said he is not asking to approve anything or for more authority, just to see the available request forms. Chair Carter said the Board has access to much of what is held by the office and staff. This discussion is a lot to absorb on the fly. He reads the statute to read “Board” as meaning the appointed Board of Elections and the director and staff to the extent they assist the Board in their duties. When it says “director”, it means the staff and excludes the appointed Board. Member Kemp said he is willing to review the statute in light of this discussion and return to the matter next meeting. Member Hunter said this is a great example for the statutory catch-all that the SBE shall adopt rules to enforcement the section. We are five members who each interpret things a little differently. Imagine that happening over 100 counties in North Carolina. The SBE has a duty to assure the uniform administration of elections, which is why she prefers to follow the guidance issued by the State Board. Member Bryan said that the guidance is frequently issued by the SBE Counsel’s office without official action by the State Board of Elections. Chair Carter said that the statutory direction to issue rules gives those opinions more force of law. b. Administrative Assignments Chair Carter said Member Kemp asked in an email for clarification of the Director’s authority to assign chief judges and judges administratively. Member Kemp reads the statute as giving that authority to the Board and Chair up to Election Day, with a different process involving the chair on Election Day. He is repeating the request he made last meeting. Chair Carter called on Director Hunter-Havens to address whether there is written guidance for administrative appointments from the SBE. The Director said there is no single written document. Rather staffing the precincts on Election Day is an administrative duty assigned to the Director. As a practical matter, having the precincts fully staffed is a requirement for opening the polls. In practice, she Board Minutes 04/12/2022 Page | 10 follows all the standards outlined in §163-41 for the Board’s appointments to the extent possible, following long-standing practice. She also considers experience and skill sets to assure the smooth operation of the polling place. Chair Carter said in his research the statute does not appear to contemplate the exact situation that arises where an appointed official is not able to serve in a specific election but wants to retain the appointment, has not resigned or died, and has not moved out of the precinct. The statute distinguishes a failure to be present from a vacancy. The difference is that the person is letting staff know they cannot work ahead of time but is not creating a vacancy. The statute allows the Board to delegate duties to the Director and allows the Chair to delegate duties to the Director. The current process thus stands on sound legal footing. Perhaps putting the process into writing would be clearer. He is willing to work on a written delegation to the Director after the primary. The current process short-changes the parties who have some statutory role in the appointment of chief judges and judges. That is partly addressed by encouraging the parties to have their folks apply and complete the on-boarding process to be available for recommendation and appointment. He said he feels comfortable with the current process but perhaps could use some clarification. Member Kemp said he reads §163-41(d) to say that the referenced appointed officials are appointed by the Board or the Chair. He recognizes the need to qualify the persons appointed but that is an easy conversation between the Chair and the Director. Nowhere does the statute say the Director appoints. Chair Carter said he can delegate that authority to the Director. Member Kemp said the section does not authorize such delegation. Chair Carter said the delegation of duties to the Director states that the Director can be empowered to perform administrative duties as assigned by the Board or the Chair. Member Kemp asked whether the Chair is specifically authorizing the Director to fill a vacancy? Chair Carter said he does not consider these appointments to be vacancies. Assigning someone to temporarily cover the position is what he does want to allow. Within a window of thirty to sixty days of election day, the best thing the Board can do is get out of the way. He does not want to sow any doubts about the Director’s authority to make administrative assignments this close to election day. Member Kemp said the statute addresses a vacancy “for any other cause”, which may include a failure to show up on election day, and requires consultation with the party chair and appointment of the person recommended by the party chair. He is not aware that the Director must follow that same requirement. Chair Carter said he is not delegating any authority to appoint vacancies. He sees Member Kemp’s interpretation as not unreasonable, but he does not agree that a sudden emergency that prevents showing up on election day is cause to establish a vacancy in the position. The current administrative process followed by this Board and other county boards is the more prudent approach. Member Kemp said he would like to see a written delegation. Chair Carter said that the current delegation covers any other duty assigned by the Board or the Chair. Member Bryan said that it makes sense to him that the Director would be required to follow the same procedures under a delegation. Consultation with the county chairs should take place ahead of time within the administrative deadlines to assure inclusion in the pool of available officials. Member Kemp asked if the party chair can recommend a transfer. Chair Carter concurs with compliance with the one non-resident judge per precinct unless that is the only Board Minutes 04/12/2022 Page | 11 choice. Member Kemp said the integrity of the election hinges on the bipartisan team of judges running the polling places. We are missing that obligation in the appointment process. Chair Carter commended Member Kemp’s study of the statute to follow the law. He sees enough leeway in this statute to allow delegation to the Director. He would like to get to a place where the political parties feel they have had input into the appointments, but the Board and staff retain final authority. Member Bryan said he had planned to leave by 6:45 pm and considering this important discussion he has stretched beyond that. He asked if the Chair expected any votes that might require a unanimous vote of the Board. Chair Carter said he did not expect any additional votes, other than on the minutes of 9/14/2021 deferred from earlier in this meeting. Chair Carter said he sees a difference between the first and second paragraphs of §163- 41(d). The first paragraph addresses a vacancy in the appointed position, while the second paragraph distinguishes failure to be present from a vacancy. He does not see the requirement to consult with the parties as equivalent to that requirement as to the appointment process. There was agreement that all need to study the provisions further. Chair Carter called for any further General Discussion on this issue. Member Kemp said he is not clear that this issue is germane to the Absentee Special meetings. He would like to see a clear written explicit delegation of authority to the Director to make administrative assignments of election officials. Chair Carter agreed but wants to take it up after the primary election is concluded. There are other matters that require the Board’s focus until then. Member Kemp asked the Chair if he intended to appoint any more judges for this election. Chair Carter said yes, as vacancies present themselves. The voters are best served by the staff identifying open positions and recommending officials from the trained pool. The voters are best served by the staff managing that process. Member Bryan was excused from the meeting at 7:00 pm. Chair Carter asked the Board to be at ease for three minutes while he reviewed the amended minutes of 9/14/2021. Chair Carter requested one additional revision on page 25 at the beginning of the second full paragraph to read, “Member Kemp believes” before “By letting the deadline get too close ….” With that addition to the other revisions, Chair Carter moved to approve the minutes of 9/14/2021 as revised, second by Secretary Miller. Motion carried unanimously. Chair Carter addressed the public comments received over the past few months from the Republican Party. He appreciated receiving the comments by email. The volume makes it difficult to track and the senders have expressed concerns about not receiving answers to their questions. He is creating a Google document to track the concerns and linking to a source document, such as a numbered memo or other work product, and will color-code Board Minutes 04/12/2022 Page | 12 the items to track progress in responding. Member Kemp thanked the Chair for his responsiveness to the questions asked. 6. ADJOURNMENT Member Hunter moved that the meeting be adjourned at 7:10 p.m., second by Chair Carter. Motion carried unanimously. The next Board meeting is scheduled to be held on Tuesday, April 19, 2022, 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 Board Meeting – 04/19/2022 Page | 1 SPECIAL MEETING New Hanover County Board of Elections April 19, 2022 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 Jenna Dahlgren, Elections Logistics Specialist Joan Geiszler-Ludlum, Administrative Technician Visitors: Sheryl Kelly, Assistant County Manager Public Attendees: Bob Gatewood; Matthew Emborsky, GOP; Julius Rothlein, NHC GOP; Susanne Werner, NHCDP; Mike Torbit; Susan Kraemer; Tom Kraemer; Francine Sulak. Virtual attendees: Jana Albritton; Ed Ablard; Loraine Buker; unidentified telephone attendee. 1. MEETING OPENING a. Call to Order Chair Carter called the meeting to order at 5:00 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. Members Carter, Miller, Bryan and Kemp were present, with Member Hunter expected shortly. b. Preliminary Announcements Chair Carter reminded attendees to check that their cell phones are silenced. He reported that the meeting is being live streamed and recorded. Board Meeting – 04/19/2022 Page | 2 c. Pledge of Allegiance Chair Carter invited all in attendance to rise as able and recite the pledge of allegiance. d. Approval of Agenda Member Kemp moved that the agenda be approved as submitted, second by Secretary Miller. Member Kemp asked if the staff planned to open and scan the absentee ballots received and approved to date during this meeting. Director Hunter-Havens said yes. Motion carried unanimously. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT AND QUESTION PERIOD Chair Carter called on the public attendees for their comments or questions, limited to two minutes each. He reported that written comments were received from Julius Rothlein, on behalf of the NHC GOP, prior to the meeting, regarding observer access to polling sites. Mr. Rothlein said he needs the issue resolved by April 28, the first day of Early Voting. Chair Carter summarized the issue as a request from the NHC GOP to assure line of sight for observers in the One Stop site, including curbside voting. Director Hunter-Havens said some changes to the site set-up were made necessary by the updated guidance on observers, including requiring observers to use the public entrance and exit while the curbside coordinator will use the staff side door for direct access to the curbside voting area. After further discussion, Chair Carter called time and deferred any further discussion to the General Discussion section of the agenda. Chair Carter called on Matthew Emborsky. Mr. Emborsky requested a weekly schedule similar to the 2021 Municipal election for review of the absentee by mail container return envelopes. Director Hunter-Havens said the first review date will be April 22 from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. She sent notice to the party chairs today. She plans to schedule two more, including one after canvass. She will give at least a week’s notice of the scheduled date. Ed Ablard, online participant, said he sent an email to the Board on the topic of voting by convicted felons. He is aware of the recent Wake County Superior Court ruling regarding felons voting which has been stayed while appealed. He understands the State Board of Elections has issued guidance, but he is not clear when voter registration will be available for early voting. He would like clarification of the Director’s understanding, particularly regarding a felon’s ability to vote provisionally in the primary. Chair Carter called time. Chair Carter called on Director Hunter-Havens to respond. She said she is expecting guidance from the SBE this week as to the procedures to be followed. Chair Carter directed Mr. Ablard to a mid-2020 SBE numbered memo to review for the previous guidance. Seeing and hearing no other public attendees wishing to comment, Chair Carter closed the public comment and question period. Board Meeting – 04/19/2022 Page | 3 3. STATUTORILY REQUIRED BUSINESS a. Review of Absentee Ballot Applications Chair Carter called on Director Hunter-Havens. The Director presented 14 absentee-by- mail container return envelopes – three Overseas and 11 Civilian applications - to the Board for their review which met all requirements, and she recommends the Board’s approval. The Board members began their review of the envelopes. Member Kemp asked about the procedure followed to verify who returned the ballot. Director Hunter-Havens said the person returning the ballot in person completes a log sheet reporting the returner’s name, relationship to the voter and signature verifying this information. The Director reported that new guidance from the SBE will require paper log sheets, instead of electronic entry, from persons returning absentee-by-mail ballots to a One Stop location and the office on Election Day. Member Hunter asked about a return envelope that shows the stamped return date as April 14, 2021. Every other indicator is receipt on April 14, 2022. Someone must have forgotten to roll the year on the date stamp. Director Hunter-Havens said she would follow up. Member Hunter moved to approve the reviewed absentee-by-mail return envelopes and applications, second by Member Bryan. Motion carried unanimously. Chair Carter moved to authorize staff to undertake the preparatory steps to open and scan, but not tabulate, the approved ballots after the General Discussion, second by Secretary Miller. Motion carried unanimously. b. Chief Judge/Judge Administrative Assignments for the 2022 Primary Election Chair Carter called for review and discussion of the list of substitutions received at the meeting. Director Hunter-Havens said the list is dynamic and changes daily. Chair Carter shared extra copies with members of the audience and called for the Board to be at ease for a moment to review the list. Director Hunter-Havens said the assignments list shows the names of the Board’s appointees and party affiliation, the name of the substitute and party affiliation, and the precinct team makeup with the proposed substitute. Member Hunter said the Board does not need to vote on the list, which the Director confirmed. Chair Carter said more precincts are in play than in the 2021 municipal election. Director Hunter-Havens said more precincts are open for the primary election. Board Meeting – 04/19/2022 Page | 4 4. GENERAL DISCUSSION a. Observers Chair Carter invited the Board members to raise any comments or questions related to the business before the Board. Member Kemp said that the curbside coordinator at the Northeast Library site will get to the voter’s vehicle and begin the check-in process before the observer can arrive from the main entrance to the curbside area. He wondered what can be done to accommodate the observer’s ability to observe the entire curbside voting process. He suggested allowing the curbside coordinator to alert the observer and wait to begin interacting with the voter until the observer can get there to see and hear the interaction between the curbside coordinator and the voter. Chair Carter asked if this is a problem at all early voting sites or only at some sites. Member Kemp said he did not have that information. Member Kemp said, in his opinion, when election officials are conducting observable business, it needs to be done in a way that allows the observer to see and hear. If there is a constraint on the observer’s path that prevents the observer from being timely to the curbside area, we should ask the curbside coordinator to wait for the observer. Chair Carter asked about the layout of this site. Director Hunter-Havens said the new guidance prohibits observers from approaching the voting booth area and the tabulator to prevent observation of a voter’s ballot. Director Hunter-Havens called the Board’s attention to the interior and exterior layout diagrams. There are two things going on at the Northeast Library site: the staff exit is adjacent to the voting booth area, and the tabulator is adjacent to the exit door, requiring the observer to use the library entrance to go to the curbside area under the new guidance. The curbside coordinator is directing voters to the parking spaces closest to the south corner of the building to the best of their ability. At most sites the driver rings a call bell to summon the curbside coordinator which the observer is equally able to hear inside the voting enclosure. If the observer begins to move upon hearing the chime, while the coordinator is gathering the curbside materials, the observer should be able to reach the vehicle at about the same time. The observer can go back inside to observe the issuance of the SOSA application being issued. Under the new guidance, the observer is no longer able to trail the curbside coordinator through the voting enclosure. The observer is not prevented from observing the key steps in the process while still preserving the confidentiality of the voter in casting their ballot. Chair Carter said that is helpful and asked several questions for clarification of the diagram of the curbside voting area. Director Hunter-Havens reviewed the room exits, the proximity of the observer seating area to the public entrance/exit, and the line of sight available to observe the various processes going on in the voting enclosure. The observer is permitted limited movement around the voting enclosure and to approach periodically the check-in and help desk locations without disrupting. Observers cannot enter the voting booth area and may approach the DS200 only when accompanied by the site lead. The chief judge or site lead has the discretion to determine when to accommodate a request to view the DS200 at a time that does not impede or disrupt the site lead’s or Board Meeting – 04/19/2022 Page | 5 chief judge’s other duties. Chair Carter asked how close is an observer allowed to the vehicle? Director Hunter-Havens said the observer is not allowed to get so close as to see the contents of the ballot, about six to ten feet, but allowed close enough to hear the voter give his or her name and address. It depends on the angle of observation. It is possible for the observer to place a chair near the curbside area to avoid having to go in and out. Member Bryan asked about the expected volume of curbside voting. Director Hunter- Havens said it varies from election to election, day to day and site to site. She said she expected fewer curbside voters in the primary compared to the 2020 general election, while expecting some increase in the 2022 general election. Deputy Director Dawkins said the volume is site-specific: the Senior Resource Center sees far more curbside voting than the Northeast Library. Sunday Souls to the Polls has a higher volume. Chair Carter said it would be helpful for the Director and staff to communicate to chief judges and judges that the role of observers in curbside voting is an issue that will need their attention. Likewise, the party officers should communicate to their observers that there will be changes and additional restrictions on how they interact with curbside voters. Observers should be instructed to check in with the site lead or chief judge when they arrive to review the procedures. Chair Carter said he would like to think, and expects, that the dedicated public servants and dedicated party observers can figure out how to work constructively with each other. Chair Carter called on Mr. Rothlein. Mr. Rothlein asked the Board to read his email on this matter. He said it is not as simple as the Board is making it sound. He said the email he received had no floor plans attached to it showing the early voting site layouts. The email said there would be designated areas without description of size, location and how many. He said there is nothing in the statute about designated areas. He said in past elections observers were told they had to remain seated in designated chairs. He said if these designated areas are going to be addressed in the same way, then the Board is violating the statute. He said the statute says very simply that observers cannot interfere with the election and, most importantly, observers cannot see the voters casting their ballots. He said the statute also states that observers will be permitted to make such observations and take such notes as the observer may desire. He said the statute is saying that observers cannot interfere with an election, and poll workers cannot interfere with an observer. In his opinion, the email is more restrictive than the statute and even the SBE guidance. He said the Northeast Library site, during prior elections, from the seating area designated for observers, when we heard the bell and saw the curbside coordinator going out, the observer walked out with the coordinator and never walked through the voting booth area. He said observers are trained not to walk through the voting booth area, especially while people are voting, you do not look over their shoulder, you do not try to figure out for whom they are voting. He said what indicates a voter’s preference is seeing the voter carrying a blue or pink sample ballot from an electioneer. Chair Carter said he is aware that the parties do a good job in training observers and there have been few problems with observers. He said the Board has one more special meeting before early voting starts and the Board has just received Mr. Rothlein’s information today. He suggested the Board review it and gather additional information for further discussion at the next meeting. If problems come up the first day, observers should communicate with party leaders who can communicate with the Director to review it. Board Meeting – 04/19/2022 Page | 6 We will all do our best to assure that observers have as much access as possible without interfering the operations of the polling site. He said it is fortunate that the primary allows us to feel our way forward without the extra layer of intensity that might come in the general election. He said there are increasing security concerns apparent over recent elections. He said his instinct is that keeping proper buffers around the DS200 is more important now than in previous years. Member Bryan referred to the SBE-prepared observer guidance document, noting the second bullet-point which allows observers to: Periodically approach the registration, ballot, or help tables without interfering with voters or elections officials, or viewing confidential information. The chief judge or one-stop manager has the discretion to limit this activity if it is disruptive. He said he would be surprised that any site leader or chief judge would attempt to confine an observer to a designated chair. Director Hunter-Havens said staff is currently training election officials on the updated guidance, while balancing voter access and security. The chief judges and site leads need to be able to manage where people are and see where people are in the polling site. Chair Carter said that seems reasonable to him. He suggested figuring out whether this is a site-specific concern. He said everyone is working in good faith to find the right balance. Mr. Rothlein asked to say for the record, so no one is confused, that he has done four large training sessions. He said in each of those sessions, he has had at least one person comment that they were told they can sit in that chair and cannot get out of it. The worst example we encountered, which has been addressed, involved chief judges making observers leave during the closing of the polls. Chair Carter said there is a proper chain of reporting of such incidents. Director Hunter- Havens apologized for any inconvenience caused by the timing of publication of the updated guidance, but this office does not control the timing of the issuance of such guidance by the State Board. Chair Carter said the Board would keep an eye on this issue. Member Kemp said, looking at the layout of the voting booths, election officials are allowed to walk in areas that are not permitted to observers to prevent their seeing ballots. In that case, the set up is not appropriate if election officials are able to see a voter marking their ballot. Voters need privacy from other voters, election officials, and observers. He said he does not know where the curbside coordinator is located, but assumes the coordinator is doing other things until a curbside voter rings the bell. If the curbside coordinator is walking through the voting booth area, it is a layout problem. Chair Carter said, in his voting experience, he never thought an election official walking around or through the voting booth area would present that problem. Member Kemp said that neither would an observer walking in the same manner. He said he is challenging the limitation on walking there based on the possibility of seeing a voter marking a ballot, because the same concern applies to an election official. Chair Carter asked if Member Kemp is advocating that the observer should be able to go wherever the election officials can go? Member Kemp said if we are constraining observers to use a particular exit and preventing them from hearing and observing all the interactions, he suggests there is an Board Meeting – 04/19/2022 Page | 7 alternative. Chair Carter asked Member Kemp to state the alternative. Member Kemp said the voter can slip their ballot into a manila folder in the voting booth until the official and observer walk past. Chair Carter asked if we know of any voters who have expressed such a concern? Member Kemp said that State guidance is prohibiting observers from entering the voting booth area which is the path to the curbside area. He said it appears to him that is a privacy issue for the voter presented by the curbside official walking through that area. Chair Carter said he has no context in which to consider these ideas, but his gut instinct is that election officials working in the polling site naturally have greater access and mobility in the site than the observer. Member Kemp agreed, noting they clear left-behind sample ballots and other materials from the booths throughout the day. Chair Carter said there is a lot of activity going on. It is one thing to say an observer should be able to see and hear everything; it is another to say they should be able to walk around wherever they want to. Member Kemp said he is saying the observer should be able to walk with the curbside coordinator out the door. Chair Carter said that is not allowed in this election. He asked if there aren’t two different concerns, one, that there are no eyes on the curbside coordinator for those few seconds of walking while two separate exits are used; two, is the concern that the curbside coordinator will reach the vehicle and begin the process before the observer can get there. Member Kemp said it is primarily the second concern. Chair Carter said that one is easier to solve. Director Hunter-Havens said the primary role of election officials is to serve the voters. It is inappropriate to require the curbside coordinator to delay the voter to wait for the observer. With this layout, both should arrive at about the same time. She wondered if the larger concern is the change from previous elections when the observer could walk with the curbside coordinator throughout the voting enclosure. That will not be allowed at any voting sites in this election and going forward. Election officials are different than observers. Election officials need free movement in the enclosure to be productive and exercise their duties. At times the curbside coordinator will be waiting off to the side. At others they must walk through the voting booths to get to the DS200. Election officials and observers are not the same thing. Member Kemp said that NC Gen. Stat. §163-45 states “… the chief judge and judges of elections shall permit the observer to make such observation and take such notes as the observer may desire.” He is saying it is the responsibility of the chief judge and judges to make sure that happens. Chair Carter disagreed, saying that is the responsibility of the observer. He said there can be two observers, preventing this problem. He said he would like to find a way forward that makes everybody as happy as possible, but it is not reasonable to put the onus on the election officials. His view is that it is the observer’s responsibility to make it work. Member Bryan asked why this access guidance has changed? Director Hunter-Havens said election officials are trained to respect the privacy of voters. But if their duties require them to walk through the voting booth areas, they are free to do so. The guidance has changed due to the additional prohibitions around the voting booth area and the DS200. For example, the ADA-accessible voting booth is set against the wall adjacent to the staff exit door used by the curbside coordinator. That makes it inappropriate for an observer to use that door. Member Bryan asked if the statute has changed. Director Hunter-Havens said this is updated guidance from the State Board. She said it balances Board Meeting – 04/19/2022 Page | 8 the privacy of the voter and protects confidential information while it provides access for observers. Chair Carter said the Board will not take any more comments from the audience and called on Secretary Miller to make his comments. Secretary Miller said that the previous comment about having the election official wait for the observer is mistaken. It is the voter who is made to wait which is not appropriate. These suggestions and concerns are prioritizing observers over voters. Member Bryan asked if the guidance was reviewed and voted upon by the State Board. Director Hunter-Havens said she only knew that the guidance came from office of the State Board. Member Bryan said that is what makes him nervous about this administrative stuff, because it not actually reviewed by the appointed Board. It seems in this case a little arbitrary. Member Hunter said we don’t know this will be a problem, this is all supposition and speculation. She said she supports the Chair’s solution, to wait until voting starts and see if there is an actual problem. Then we can figure it out and address it. Unless it becomes an actual problem, continued discussion is not productive. The Board is meeting weekly, giving us adequate opportunity to address any problems. Member Kemp said no one in this room has the authority to ignore the statute. He reread the portion of the statute on observers, cited above. He said the Republican Party- appointed observers want to observe curbside voting. If there are obstacles to their ability to observe caused by the layout of the voting enclosure, then the site lead or chief judge has the responsibility, by statute, to enable the observer, which is superior to the administrative guidance. Chair Carter agreed that the statute is more authoritative than a handout. The Chief Judge has duties to observers, and observers have duties to chief judges, and they all have duties and responsibilities to the voters. He said he wanted to look at the space here. This is where we must count on the teamwork of the election officials and observers to address the issues as they arise. He agrees that observers have the right to observe curbside voting. Hearing no further discussion from the Board, Chair Carter concluded the General Discussion period. Chair Carter asked the audience to move to the hallway while staff rearranged the room to open and scan the approved absentee ballots. When the audience returned, Director Hunter-Havens gave a brief explanation of the process. The ballot duplication team proceeded to duplicate three overseas absentee ballots for scanning. At the conclusion of the scanning process, Chair Carter called the Board back into session and called on Director Hunter-Havens for her report on the completion of Board Meeting – 04/19/2022 Page | 9 scanning 51 absentee-by-mail ballots approved on April 12 and April 19 which reconciles with the number of applications approved by the Board on those two dates. Member Kemp asked the Director if the results are saved on USB drives that will be uploaded and counted on Election Day. Director Hunter-Havens said that is correct and explained that the results are saved to a proprietary USB for each meeting date, and she always makes a backup USB. On Election Day at 2:00 p.m., all USBs from all absentee meetings will be loaded onto a disconnected machine for tabulation. The results will then be uploaded and printed for the Board’s review and approval, then the results are uploaded to the State Board of Elections. Each USB is specially coded to secure and safeguard the integrity of the data. Secretary Miller said one Board member of each party is invited to observe the tabulating and uploading of the results data on Election night. Secretary Miller asked the Director how many absentee by mail ballots are outstanding. Director Hunter-Havens said nearly 500 ballots have been mailed out and about 60 to 70 requests per week coming in. that number will increase as Election Day gets closer. 5. ADJOURNMENT Having concluded the agenda, Chair Carter called for a motion to adjourn. Member Kemp moved that the meeting be adjourned at 7:09 p.m., second by Secretary Miller. Motion carried unanimously. The next Board meeting is scheduled to be held on April 26, 2022, 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 04/26/2022 Page | 1 SPECIAL MEETING New Hanover County Board of Elections April 26, 2022 5:00 P. M. ATTENDANCE Members: Oliver Carter III, Chair Derrick R. Miller, Secretary Russ C. Bryan, Member Lyana G. Hunter, Member, attended virtually Bruce Kemp, Member Staff: Rae Hunter-Havens, Executive Director Caroline Dawkins, Deputy Director Jenna Dahlgren, Elections Logistics Specialist Joan Geiszler-Ludlum, Administrative Technician Visitors: Sheryl Kelly, Assistant County Manager Public Attendees: Bob Gatewood; Matthew Emborsky, NHC GOP Virtual attendees: Jane Saunders; Tyler Daye; Jessica O’Neill 1. MEETING OPENING a. Call to Order Chair Carter called the meeting to order at 5:00 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. Chair Carter, Secretary Miller, Members Bryan and Kemp were present, and Member Hunter joined the meeting remotely. b. Preliminary Announcements Chair Carter reminded the audience to silence their cell phones and that the meeting is being recorded and live streamed on the internet. c. Pledge of Allegiance Chair Carter invited all in attendance to rise and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Board Minutes 04/26/2022 Page | 2 d. Approval of Agenda Member Kemp moved that the agenda be approved as submitted, second by Secretary Miller. Motion carried unanimously. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT AND QUESTION PERIOD Chair Carter called on the public in-person attendees for their comments or questions, limited to two minutes each with a total maximum time of twenty minutes, and addressing a topic on this meeting agenda. He reminded speakers to yield to the Board Members or Director to respond. Chair Carter noted receiving an email from Matthew Emborsky regarding the sample audit count. Chair Carter invited Matthew Emborsky for any additional comments or questions he may have. Mr. Emborsky asked to confirm the voter challenge forms and procedures, noting that those are clear for challenges by appointed observers and the Board. Chair Carter directed him to the State Board of Elections (SBE) website for the current forms and procedures, and he noted there are different procedures to be followed, depending on when the challenge is filed, whether the challenge occurs during One Stop Early Voting or on Election Day. Mr. Emborsky said he has concerns about having the correct procedure for a recount, which is set out in N C Gen. Stat. §163-182.7. He wanted to be sure he has the correct governing statute and has concerns a recount will not be done correctly. He would like to have any related guidance in advance to know how many observers and staff will be involved. He is also concerned with the lack of a precinct sort of the results on the DS200 tabulators. Finally, he asked for public observation of the upload of election results to the SBE, adding there is time to plan for such observation, which is allowed in other counties. Chair Carter called on Director Hunter-Havens for her response. She said the sample audit count procedures, rules, and regulations are those set by the SBE. The SBE does a random draw after Election Day, county by county, to identify which precincts, One Stop voting sites, and/or absentee-by-mail ballots will be the sample, and which contest will be sampled. She is not anticipating any changes to the procedures before the 2022 primary. Regarding the precinct sort: the Director said that the One Stop precinct sort is conducted within 30 days after the canvass. She said we do not have the capacity nor the technology to do a precinct sort of One Stop ballots before canvass, and county boards of elections are not required to do so. Regarding public observation of the uploading of the Election Day results: the Director said the chief judges return the results securely after the polls are closed. There is no additional room for public observation in the midst of the precinct returns work. One Board member representing each of the two parties with the largest number of registered voters represent the public by observing the uploading process for public accountability. An added factor is the lack of space for a public observation area in this building. She Board Minutes 04/26/2022 Page | 3 begins uploading the data around 8:00 p.m. when the first chief judges return. It can take as long as midnight to complete the uploading of all data. Regarding the voter challenge procedure: the Director confirmed that the current procedures and forms are posted on the SBE website. The Director pointed to the requirement that a voter challenge for an absentee ballot, including a One Stop ballot, must be filed by a voter of the same precinct. All voter challenges are sent to the SBE for review. Challenges based on address changes are not allowed. Other bases for a challenge may be referred back to the county board to do a preliminary review to determine whether a hearing is required. Member Kemp asked about challenges during One Stop Early Voting to clarify that the person filing the challenge must be a voter residing in the same precinct as the challenged voter. He said that an observer would not be qualified to challenge a voter unless the observer lives in the same precinct as the voter. Chair Carter said that he recalled from the training he received, there are two ways to file a challenge: either by completing the challenge form on the spot in the voting site or by filing the challenge form in the county Board of Elections office by 5:00 p.m. on Election Day. Director Hunter-Havens offered to put together a summary of the challenge procedure for the party chairs and will share that with the Board Member Bryan said, on the information provided by Mr. Emborsky regarding public observation of the uploading of Election Day results, there is nothing very exciting about watching the upload. A Board member of each party watches the procedure, which is pretty mundane. Mr. Emborsky said that other counties, and specifically Wake County, have a more transparent process. The process may be routine, but the public should be part of the process of observing what is tabulated at the county level is uploaded accurately to the State level. Member Bryan said the Board observers are not able to see the data. Mr. Emborsky said while a process may seem mundane or boring to the staff or Board, for the public, the access to observe increases confidence and awareness. Member Bryan said you don’t actually see any data. Director Hunter-Havens said the public sees the result tape from the precinct which shows the number and total of votes. Member Bryan said all that you see is the bar conforming the upload is in progress. The Director said the staff then cross-checks the uploaded data. She said other counties have access to better space with glass walls while also maintaining proper security. Here we do this in a secure small office because our space is more limited. Secretary Miller said the current concern seems to focus on the one step in the process where the county data is uploaded to the SBE. Surely there are other processes involved that ensure the results are accurately transmitted to the State level. Watching someone put a thumb drive into a computer is not the most effective way to ensure the accuracy of the data. There are a number of checks and balances throughout the process that contribute to the assurance of the accuracy of the reported results. Mr. Emborsky said that in 2010, Warren County uploaded the test results instead of the returns by accident. No one realized it until the public saw the data on the State website and the number of Libertarian votes exceeded the number of Libertarians registered in the county. So, it has already happened by accident. Director Hunter-Havens said that she could not speak to what happened in another county but that would not happen here. Secretary Miller said it Board Minutes 04/26/2022 Page | 4 was, and would be, caught and corrected even if a hawk-eyed member of the public had not been available. Member Bryan said he hears in all the questions being asked a request that the public have access to all the processes and procedures, provided that fair access can be balanced with the necessary security. He said the Board has a duty to provide access whenever possible and allow more transparency. He does not hear the questions as suggesting that the process itself is questionable. Chair Carter said he would like to address the sample audit count in light of several questions raised by recent emails. He said that there are two sections of the statute that touch on the sample audit count, with the language virtually identical except one section says “and” and the other says “or.” The difference, in a nutshell, is the size of the sample required. The statute says that the SBE sets out a procedure and the county boards shall follow that procedure. He said his concern is that aspect is structured a little differently than most of the statutes we see, where a statute will tell county boards to do a certain thing and set out rules about how to do it, then turn us loose to do it. Here the statute tells the State Board to do certain things and gives them some guidelines in doing it, then essentially tells us “Do what they say.” He said, to him, the two different statutes dealing with the sample count are different from other sections of Chapter 163 in that they specifically emphasize the subservience of the county boards to the State Board of Elections. He said he looks forward to learning more about sample audits. It may not be appropriate to adjust processes during the primary, but he thinks Mr. Emborsky has raised some interesting nuances in the statute and good policy arguments as to why it may be a good idea to run a larger sample. He expressed his appreciation to Mr. Emborsky for his work on this matter and looked forward to learning more about it. Member Kemp asked Chair Carter to consider summarizing the concerns and ask the State Board to clarify the guidance, giving them an opportunity to explain their decision to choose one method over another. Chair Carter said he is not personally asking the State Board’s direction on these issues, but would be glad to work with Director Hunter- Havens to come up with a list of questions for response by the State Board. Seeing and hearing no other public attendees wishing to comment, Chair Carter closed the public comment and question period. 3. STATUTORILY-REQUIRED BUSINESS a. Review Absentee Ballot Applications Director Hunter-Havens presented 26 absentee-by-mail applications, 25 Civilian and 1 Overseas, which meet all the requirements for Board consideration, and she recommends their approval. She said Member Kemp had requested that, for any absentee-by-mail ballots returned in person, we attach the return log sheet to the ballot, which we are able to do in this election, but in an election with a higher volume of absentee-by-mail ballots, Board Minutes 04/26/2022 Page | 5 we will not be able to do that. She explained the procedure: when a person returns an absentee ballot in person, the deliverer completes the return log sheet, giving the required information. If the returner is the voter, it is processed for presentation to the Board for acceptance. If the returner is not the voter and is not a near relative eligible to return the ballot, we accept the ballot and present that information to the Board for their decision. The returner’s signature on the form attests that the information provided is true. The form is an administrative document for tracking to prevent absentee ballot harvesting and to verify chain of custody. It is a public record. Director Hunter-Havens drew the Board’s attention to one Overseas returned ballot, which looks different because it was returned by mail instead of email. The Board began their review of the absentee-by-mail container return envelopes. Member Kemp asked the Director if these ballots will be tabulated today. Director Hunter-Havens said these will not be tabulated, only opened and scanned. Tabulation would be improper. Member Bryan moved to separate out the absentee-by-mail application where he questions the voter’s signature as inconsistent with the voter’s printed name and requests SBE review and give guidance, second by Member Kemp. Member Bryan said he questions whether the signature is that of the voter because it appears to be missing letters. He said he does not agree with SBE guidance on signatures because there is nothing in the statute that prohibits signature comparison. Director Hunter-Havens said there must be clear evidence to reject an absentee-by-mail ballot based on the signature. She said that the form tells the voter to sign or make their mark. Signatures change over time and with loss or change of physical abilities. She said the voter signed the application and two witnesses attested that they saw the voter vote the ballot and sign the application on the container-return envelope. Numbered Memo 2021-03, the most recent guidance on addressing absentee container-return envelope deficiencies, is clear: Verification of the voter’s identity is completed through the witness requirement. The voter’s signature on the envelope shall not be compared with the voter’s signature in their registration record because this is not required by North Carolina law. If the Board directs her to seek the SBE’s guidance, she will do so. Secretary Miller said he is uneasy at holding the absentee ballot over suspicion of the signature and would vote to approve it. As he sees it, there is no clear indication of a question about the signature when the witnesses attested by signing their names. He said that none of us is competent to analyze signatures. Member Bryan asked whether signature comparison was allowed in the past. Chair Carter asked Member Bryan what clarification is he seeking from the SBE? Member Bryan said he wants guidance on how to address this situation where the voter’s signature does not appear to be the name of the voter. He thinks investigation should compare the voter’s signature on record on their voter registration. Board Minutes 04/26/2022 Page | 6 Member Hunter asked whether she should vote on the motion because she cannot see the application in question. Chair Carter said if she does not vote, the Board may deadlock on the motion. Member Hunter said it is a procedural question whether she is permitted to vote while attending virtually. She agreed with Secretary Miller’s analysis. She tends to lean toward approval in the absence of a clear defect. Chair Carter said once the ballot is held, voter is not being notified until after the Board acts. Member Bryan said he is only asking for SBE guidance for this ballot. Hearing and seeing no further discussion, Chair Carter called the question. Members Bryan and Kemp voted aye; Chair Carter, Secretary Miller and Member Hunter voted no. Motion failed for lack of a majority. Chair Carter moved to accept all 26 absentee-by-mail applications and direct the staff to open and scan the ballots, second by Member Kemp. Motion carried unanimously. At 6:10 p.m., staff proceeded with opening and scanning 26 absentee-by-mail ballots as approved. Scanning concluded at 6:34 p.m. Chair Carter called the meeting back to order and proceeded with the next item on the agenda. b. Chief Judge/Judge Administrative Assignments for the 2022 Primary Election Chair Carter said the Board received a spreadsheet of precinct official administrative substitutions and called on Director Hunter-Havens for her report. Director Hunter-Havens said one appointed Chief Judge and one appointed Judge are unable to serve in their precincts on Election Day. She said Deputy Director Dawkins and Elections Program and Outreach Coordinator Jessica O’Neill worked hard and did a great job to find their replacements. The positions are: • M07: Judge Carolyn Atkinson, unaffiliated, is unable to serve in this election. John Jewell, unaffiliated resident of the precinct, has confirmed his availability for this temporary assignment. • W32: Chief Judge David Weaver, unaffiliated, is unable to serve in this election. Stephen Lambros, an unaffiliated non-resident transfer, has confirmed his availability for this temporary assignment. The appointed Judges are residents of this precinct. Assignment of Mr. Lambros will not exceed the allowable number of transfer chief judges and judges for this precinct. Board action is not required. She reported these administrative assignments for the Board’s information. Chair Carter noted that the substitutes are both unaffiliated voters replacing unaffiliated appointees. He called for any discussion. Board Minutes 04/26/2022 Page | 7 Member Kemp said that the statute cited in the agenda packet is §163-35(d), which he assumes was added in response to his request for the legal basis for board staff to make these assignments. He said he reads the cited section to mean that the authority may be delegated to the staff, either by a previous chair or by a resolution adopted by a previous board. He does not recall that specific item being in the list of delegated duties reviewed in the first meeting of the current board. It may be but he does not recall it. He wants to see the basis of authority to delegate making temporary assignments, either by the chair or by the board, to demonstrate that the board is following the law. He would like to see clear guidelines set for administrative assignments, like those listed in §163-41(c) and (d). He has one other point to make but response from the Director would be appropriate. Chair Carter said he agreed with most of Member Kemp’s statement that the Delegation of Director Duties does not specifically address delegation to the Director and staff to make administrative assignments. The Chair said he understands the basis of the concern is the comparison between §163-41(d), setting out the Chair’s authority to fill a vacancy and prescribing the required steps, restrictions, and considerations, and the procedure followed in making administrative one-time assignments that lacks that level of statutory detail. Member Kemp said that is his ultimate concern, but his primary concern is the legal basis for staff to make assignments. Chair Carter agreed there is not a clear written delegation of authority. He is not sure it is needed because there is a difference between the Director making an administrative assignment and the Chair’s duty to make an appointment to fill a vacancy. Chair Carter said he remains open to creating a more defined, written delegation. The statute does not envision or address the situation where the appointed chief judge or judge is not available to serve in a single election, but is able to continue serving for the term of the appointment. He said Member Kemp makes a fair point that the political parties have a statutory role in filling vacancies, suggesting they may have a similar role in making administrative assignments, following an unwritten procedure. He said he is very open to considering and adopting a written procedure, just not in the next five weeks before the primary. He would like to defer the process of perfecting a policy to the June and/or July regular meetings. Member Kemp said his interest in following §163-41(d) is secondary to his primary interest in establishing the legal authority of the staff to make the assignments. He said he asked the Director how she applies §163-41(d) to administrative assignments. Chair Carter said he would be concerned if it appeared that assignees were making an end run around the appointment process, but he does not see that happening. Time conflicts can arise. If, instead, applicants to serve as chief judges and judges were beating down the door to be appointed, he may not look so favorably on a situation where the appointed official is not able or willing to serve in a given election, but that is not the present case. Chair Carter called on Director Hunter-Havens for her thoughts. The Director said the administrative assignments fall within the general administrative duties this Board, by unanimous vote, delegated to the Director. As Election Day gets closer, staff is not able to on-board new precinct officials, but must quickly find substitutes for an official who is not available on Election Day but remains the board-appointed official, while being mindful of party balance, of skill sets and prior knowledge and training, and residency requirements for judges under §163-41. Chair Carter asked the Director if she has made Board Minutes 04/26/2022 Page | 8 administrative assignments like these in every election since becoming Director. She said yes, these assignments are made every election cycle since she has been on staff. It is a necessary and common practice to fill the positions. Chair Carter referenced a draft of the Delegation of Director Duties, noting the delegation of all personnel duties with the advice and consent of the Board, and perform any other duties as the Board or the Chair may assign. The motion on the Delegation, as adopted by the Board, makes a similar reference. The tradition may not be based on a formal delegation. Chair Carter asked the Director if she was aware of a previous resolution. Director Hunter-Havens said that a Board-adopted Delegation of Duties has been in effect for some time. Chair Carter said he is asking whether there has been a motion or resolution directing or authorizing the staff to make administrative assignments. Director Hunter-Havens said she does not recall the Board adopting such a resolution. In speaking with other directors, assigning substitutes is viewed as lying within the general delegation of administrative duties. Chair Carter said he appreciates the staff efforts to maintain the party affiliations of the officials in the precinct and honor the residency requirements. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Carter moved to the next item on the agenda. 4. GENERAL DISCUSSION a. Sample Audit Count Chair Carter asked whether the SBE has a clear procedure for selecting the sample sites to count. Director Hunter-Havens said there is a detailed procedure the SBE follows. Chair Carter asked if it is set out in statute or regulation or numbered memo, or does it change over time? The Director said the process has been consistent over time, but she is not sure of the source. The SBE sends specific instructions once the sample is drawn, which the SBE does publicly. The email addresses what precincts will be counted, which contest will be counted; sends the required audit forms that are completed and submitted to the Board; and reviews the rules and procedures. Typically, the sample is two precincts or by reporting method, such as a One Stop site or absentee ballots. In her tenure, she does not recall having a One Stop site or absentee ballots being assigned. Chair Carter asked how long before the election is the sample audit sites determined? The Director said the drawing takes place the day after Election Day. Teams and preparation begin once the precincts or reporting methods are set. Selection of the sample audit teams will avoid inclusion of precinct officials who worked in the selected precincts or sites. Chair Carter said it is not the practice to count both precinct ballots and One Stop ballots for that precinct. The Director confirmed that is not the practice and would not align with the SBE guidance. Member Kemp thanked Chair Carter for the time and attention given to the sample audit count process. b. Request of Board Member to Serve as an Observer Chair Carter said the next item is Member Kemp’s request to serve as a party observer during One Stop early voting. Mr. Knecht has submitted Member Kemp’s name with Board Minutes 04/26/2022 Page | 9 the Republican Party list of at-large observers. That has apparently not been requested or done in the past, to the knowledge of Director Hunter-Havens and the State Director. They have expressed concerns with Member Kemp serving in that role. Chair Carter asked Member Kemp if he wanted to discuss this matter. Member Kemp said he has sent a couple of questions to Director Hunter-Havens which she has forwarded to the State Director for clarification. If he does not serve as an observer now, he would like to understand the guidance provided. He is not denied the appointment as an observer. If denied, he wants to be sure that the Republican Party would be permitted to replace him, as the list was submitted close to the deadline. Member Kemp said his objective is having a basis for assuring people that things are done well, that this is a tight ship and things are done well. When his request gets denied, he gets the opposite impression. He said that, as a new Board member, he is trying to learn the law and processes to be an effective Board member. He is interested in observing One Stop as a quick way to receive the training and get up to speed, to erase what he knows of Virginia procedure and replace it with North Carolina procedure. He wants to be able to assure people that they have nothing to be concerned about. Chair Carter said he does not question Member Kemp’s motives, that he has consistently sought to go above and beyond in his service to this Board, in attention to details. There is no better way to learn than by doing. Chair Carter said he has not had any conversation or correspondence with the State Board. Chair Carter said that conflicts of interest can be tricky, and gave an example from his representation of an LLC. He was allowed to represent both the LLC and the individual, but declined. As events unfolded, that turned out to be a good call, in an abundance of caution. What he is seeing from the State Board is their concern that a Board member serving as an observer and a matter related to that service comes before the Board in a quasi-judicial proceeding, the Board member would be required to recuse himself from consideration of that matter, which could result in a tie vote. Chair Carter said he has reservations for that reason. He is also concerned that the officials working the One Stop site feeling stressed, expecting they would be told to treat him like any other observer and might feel constrained. Chair Carter said, while he does not agree with everything the State Board says, he feels Member Kemp is going out on a limb with this request. It may seem to be the best way to accomplish his goals. Chair Carter called for discussion from any other Board members. Member Bryan said the Board should review the guidance when received from the State Board, then respond regarding any conflict of interest. If you were to do something inappropriate, the State Board could vote to remove you from the Board. He feels it is up to Member Kemp to decide. Chair Carter said the State Board is trying to impress upon the Board that there could be a series of events you set in motion by taking on these dual roles that could lead to the State Board considering removing you. Chair Carter said in previous discussions the Board has discussed the observers having access to some parts of the process, but not others. Would you be comfortable abiding by the site lead’s enforcement of the rules for observers? Member Kemp said that the site lead is the only official he could speak with, Board Minutes 04/26/2022 Page | 10 so yes, he could follow the site lead’s guidance. That is the role of the observer. Chair Carter said he would not like to be required to recuse himself. While this is coming from a good place and putting in a lot of time and effort in this work, Chair Carter said he would not want that for Member Kemp. Member Kemp said that he expects the Republican Chair to appoint an observer to replace him. He would like answers to his questions after canvass so that he can evaluate more thoroughly ahead of time for the general election. He said when he looks closely at the language used in the guidance from the State Board, he thinks he is being set up to be removed. He does not want to have such thoughts about guidance that he is following. Chair Carter said that is prudent and agreed to work with Member Kemp to get clear answers to his questions. Chair Carter asked the Director whether the Republican Party chair would be able to submit the name of a replacement for Member Kemp by 10:00 a.m. tomorrow, April 27, which would allow that person to begin work when One Stop begins on Monday, May 2. 5. ADJOURNMENT Member Kemp moved that the meeting be adjourned at 7:15 p.m., second by Secretary Miller. Motion carried unanimously. The next Board meeting is scheduled to be held on May 3, 2022, 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 Regular Meeting New Hanover County Board of Elections July 12, 2022 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 with a twenty-minute limit total for all public comments. Board Action Required: Discuss as necessary Item # 1d Item # 2 Regular Meeting New Hanover County Board of Elections July 12, 2022 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 12th Period (June) • Operating Expenses expended through FY21-22 12th Period (June) • Grand Total expended through FY21-22 12th Period (June) 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 2,400 voters from the voter registration rolls from March through June of 2022 consistent with NC Gen. Stat. §163-82.14. • Processed 4,857 new registration forms, 2,675 duplicate registration forms, and 4,029 registration update forms from March through June of 2022. c. FY22-23 Budget Enhancement Requests The New Hanover County Board of Commissioners approved the requested budget enhancements submitted by the NHC Board of Elections for FY22-23. I have included a general overview of these enhancement requests below for reference. The new compensation rates for election officials will go into effect beginning with the 2022 General Election. • Increase in Election Official Compensation (One-Stop Officials) from $10.00 per hour to $15.00 per hour for One-Stop Assistants and $17.00 per hour for One- Stop Site Leads • Increase in Election Official Compensation (Election Day Officials) for Chief Judges, Judges and Assistants. o Increase rate of pay for Chief Judges from $225 to $300 per day ($15 per hour to $20 per hour for a 15-hour day). o Increase rate of pay for Judges from $180 to $255 per day ($12 per hour to $17 per hour for 15-hour day). o Increase rate of pay for Assistants from $120 to $225 per day ($8 per hour to $15 per hour for 15-hour day). • Increase in Election Official Compensation (Multipartisan Assistance Team Members) from $25 to $40 per visit for average of two-to-three-hour visit. Item # 2 Item # 3 Document/s Included: Financial Year-To-Date Budget Report 12th Period (June); NVRA Report March – June 2022; NVRA Visualizations Report; NVRA Report Definitions Board Action Required: Discuss as necessary NEW HANOVER COUNTY - LIVE YEAR-TO-DATE BUDGET REPORT Report generated: 07/06/2022 14:40User: rhavensProgram ID: glytdbud Page 1 FOR 2022 12 ACCOUNTS FOR: ORIGINAL TRANFRS/ REVISED AVAILABLE PCT110 GENERAL FUND APPROP ADJSTMTS BUDGET YTD ACTUAL ENCUMBRANCES BUDGET USE/COL 16 BOARD OF ELECTIONS 10 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 11016102 400122 COUNTY CANDIDAT -9,000 0 -9,000 -12,169.68 .00 3,169.68 135.2% 11016102 400165 FEES -153,901 0 -153,901 -152,529.66 .00 -1,371.34 99.1%* 11016102 400370 PRINTING FEES -100 0 -100 -3.00 .00 -97.00 3.0%* TOTAL CHARGES FOR SERVICES -163,001 0 -163,001 -164,702.34 .00 1,701.34 101.0% 48 L-T DEBT ISSUED 11016105 500130 LEASE LIABILITE 0 -18,000 -18,000 .00 .00 -18,000.00 .0%* TOTAL L-T DEBT ISSUED 0 -18,000 -18,000 .00 .00 -18,000.00 .0% 60 SALARIES & BENEFITS 11016100 610000 SALARIES AND WA 438,217 0 438,217 354,342.19 .00 83,874.81 80.9%11016100 611500 CASUAL PART TIM 558,889 -333,000 225,889 121,897.97 14,925.00 89,066.03 60.6%11016100 611600 OVERTIME PAY (O 7,974 0 7,974 6,896.40 .00 1,077.60 86.5%11016100 621000 SOCIAL SECURITY 76,890 0 76,890 28,328.07 .00 48,561.93 36.8%11016100 622000 RETIREMENT-LOCA 49,218 0 49,218 41,281.83 .00 7,936.17 83.9%11016100 623500 GENERAL 401-K M 25,123 0 25,123 8,813.06 .00 16,309.94 35.1%11016100 625000 MEDICAL INSURAN 80,648 0 80,648 60,601.22 .00 20,046.78 75.1%11016100 626000 LONG TERM DISAB 754 0 754 584.80 .00 169.20 77.6% TOTAL SALARIES & BENEFITS 1,237,713 -333,000 904,713 622,745.54 14,925.00 267,042.46 70.5% 70 OPERATING EXPENSES 11016100 700000 CONTR SERVS 269,109 7,128 276,237 293,148.91 .00 -16,911.91 106.1%* 11016100 700330 RENT 2,375 0 2,375 625.00 .00 1,750.00 26.3% 11016100 700350 ADVERTISING COS 4,000 0 4,000 2,536.30 .00 1,463.70 63.4% 11016100 700365 CELLULAR EXPENS 456 0 456 4,613.69 .00 -4,157.69 1011.8%* NEW HANOVER COUNTY - LIVE YEAR-TO-DATE BUDGET REPORT Report generated: 07/06/2022 14:40User: rhavensProgram ID: glytdbud Page 2 FOR 2022 12 ACCOUNTS FOR: ORIGINAL TRANFRS/ REVISED AVAILABLE PCT110 GENERAL FUND APPROP ADJSTMTS BUDGET YTD ACTUAL ENCUMBRANCES BUDGET USE/COL 11016100 700370 POSTAGE EXPENSE 58,750 -1,814 56,936 48,581.60 .00 8,354.40 85.3% 11016100 700430 M&R-EQUIPMENT 50,855 0 50,855 50,855.00 .00 .00 100.0% 11016100 700500 PRINTING 126,300 -5,000 121,300 56,710.63 .00 64,589.37 46.8% 11016100 700512 PRINTER-COPIER 10,000 -2,500 7,500 4,818.20 .00 2,681.80 64.2% 11016100 700520 SUPPLIES 59,554 -1,814 57,740 29,034.52 4,127.50 24,577.98 57.4% 11016100 700542 SUPPLIES-COMPUT 5,928 0 5,928 1,979.50 .00 3,948.50 33.4% 11016100 700700 DUES & SUBSCRIP 470 0 470 .00 .00 470.00 .0% 11016100 700825 EMPLOYEE REIMBU 500 0 500 1,499.15 .00 -999.15 299.8%* 11016100 700905 TRAINING & TRAV 8,500 -3,000 5,500 2,398.07 .00 3,101.93 43.6% 11016100 701050 INSURANCE&BONDS 26,852 16,179 43,031 43,030.58 .00 .00 100.0% TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 623,649 9,179 632,828 539,831.15 4,127.50 88,868.93 86.0% 75 DEBT SERVICE 11016100 701130 PRINCIPAL ON LE 0 6,755 6,755 .00 .00 6,755.00 .0% 11016100 701135 INTEREST ON LEA 0 245 245 .00 .00 245.00 .0% TOTAL DEBT SERVICE 0 7,000 7,000 .00 .00 7,000.00 .0% 80 CAPITAL OUTLAY 11016100 800630 CAPITAL OUTLAY- 0 18,000 18,000 .00 .00 18,000.00 .0% TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY 0 18,000 18,000 .00 .00 18,000.00 .0% TOTAL BOARD OF ELECTIONS 1,698,361 -316,821 1,381,540 997,874.35 19,052.50 364,612.73 73.6% TOTAL GENERAL FUND 1,698,361 -316,821 1,381,540 997,874.35 19,052.50 364,612.73 73.6% TOTAL REVENUES -163,001 -18,000 -181,001 -164,702.34 .00 -16,298.66 TOTAL EXPENSES 1,861,362 -298,821 1,562,541 1,162,576.69 19,052.50 380,911.39 NEW HANOVER COUNTY - LIVE YEAR-TO-DATE BUDGET REPORT Report generated: 07/06/2022 14:40User: rhavensProgram ID: glytdbud Page 3 FOR 2022 12 ORIGINAL TRANFRS/ REVISED AVAILABLE PCT APPROP ADJSTMTS BUDGET YTD ACTUAL ENCUMBRANCES BUDGET USE/COL GRAND TOTAL 1,698,361 -316,821 1,381,540 997,874.35 19,052.50 364,612.73 73.6% ** END OF REPORT - Generated by RAE HUNTER-HAVENS ** NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS NVRA REPORT Reporting Period:-3/1/2022 6/30/2022 Totals Active 150,488 Inactive 27,202 Total Registration 177,690 REPORTING PERIOD Registrations Approved 4,687 Total Registrations Removed 2,400 Inactive Registrations Removed 485 New Registrations 00 - No Application Source 20 01 - Public Assistance 47 02 - Disability 3 03 - Other (ESC) 0 04 - Armed Forces 0 05 - DMV 4,072 06 - Mail-in 100 07 - In-person 187 08 - Library & High School 11 09 - Spanish Language Application 3 10 - Online Registration 195 17 - Registration Drives 207 21 - Medicaid Renewal 9 96 - Temporary FWAB Registrant 0 97 - Temporary FPCA Registrant 3 4,857 Duplicates 00 - No Application Source 26 01 - Public Assistance 23 02 - Disability 2 03 - Other (ESC) 0 04 - Armed Forces 0 05 - DMV 698 06 - Mail-in 548 07 - In-person 595 08 - Library & High School 4 09 - Spanish Language Application 0 10 - Online Registration 82 17 - Registration Drives 122 21 - Medicaid Renewal 9 95 - Voter Return of NCOA 175 96 - Temporary FWAB Registrant 0 97 - Temporary FPCA Registrant 18 98 - Voter Change On Confirmation 153 vtr_nvra_stat.rpt Page 1 of 5Jul 06, 2022 2:51 pm NVRA REPORTNEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS 99 - Voter Change On Verification 220 2,675 vtr_nvra_stat.rpt Page 2 of 5Jul 06, 2022 2:51 pm NVRA REPORTNEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS Changes of Information 00 - No Application Source 55 01 - Public Assistance 54 02 - Disability 2 03 - Other (ESC) 0 04 - Armed Forces 0 05 - DMV 1,972 06 - Mail-in 369 07 - In-person 701 08 - Library & High School 0 09 - Spanish Language Application 0 10 - Online Registration 317 17 - Registration Drives 194 21 - Medicaid Renewal 5 95 - Voter Return of NCOA 69 96 - Temporary FWAB Registrant 0 97 - Temporary FPCA Registrant 34 98 - Voter Change On Confirmation 151 99 - Voter Change On Verification 106 4,029 Verifications # of 1st & 2nd verification mailings sent 20,925 # of 1st NCOA mailings sent 0 # of 1st verification returned undeliverable 1,110 # of verification returned by voter 301 Confirmations # of confirmations returned by voter 293 # of confirmations sent 1,030 # of confirmations returned undeliverable 2,531 # of confirmations not returned at all 506 COUNTY STATISTICAL Constitution 0 Democratic 51,535 Green 0 Libertarian 1,506 Republican 53,971 Unaffiliated 70,678 American Indian 389 Asian 1,360 Black 19,708 Multi-Racial 960 Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 12 White 136,820 Other 3,674 Undesignated 14,767 Hispanic 3,734 Not Hispanic 119,699 Undesignated 54,257 vtr_nvra_stat.rpt Page 3 of 5Jul 06, 2022 2:51 pm NVRA REPORTNEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS Female 87,157 Male 74,373 Undesignated 16,160 Unprocessed Registrations - Incomplete Queue 00 - No Application Source 35 01 - Public Assistance 25 02 - Disability 4 03 - Other (ESC) 0 04 - Armed Forces 0 05 - DMV 812 06 - Mail-in 60 07 - In-person 43 08 - Library & High School 25 09 - Spanish Language Application 0 10 - Online Registration 32 17 - Registration Drives 120 21 - Medicaid Renewal 2 95 - Voter Return of NCOA 35 96 - Temporary FWAB Registrant 0 97 - Temporary FPCA Registrant 5 98 - Voter Change On Confirmation 67 99 - Voter Change On Verification 58 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 1 06 - Mail-in 0 07 - In-person 2 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 1 99 - Voter Change On Verification 1 Unprocessed Registrations - Review Queue 00 - No Application Source 1 01 - Public Assistance 25 02 - Disability 0 03 - Other (ESC) 0 04 - Armed Forces 0 05 - DMV 157 06 - Mail-in 34 07 - In-person 358 vtr_nvra_stat.rpt Page 4 of 5Jul 06, 2022 2:51 pm NVRA REPORTNEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS 08 - Library & High School 0 09 - Spanish Language Application 0 10 - Online Registration 80 17 - Registration Drives 33 21 - Medicaid Renewal 0 96 - Temporary FWAB Registrant 0 97 - Temporary FPCA Registrant 0 vtr_nvra_stat.rpt Page 5 of 5Jul 06, 2022 2:51 pm 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 50000 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 Dec-21 Jan-22 Feb-22 Mar-22 Apr-22 May-22 Jun-22 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 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 Dec-21 Jan-22 Feb-22 Mar-22 Apr-22 May-22 Jun-22 0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000 160000 180000 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 Dec-21 Jan-22 Feb-22 Mar-22 Apr-22 May-22 Jun-22 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 July 12, 2022 Subject: 2022 General Election Absentee One-Stop Voting Plan Applicable Statutes and/or Rules N.C. Gen. Stat §§ 163-227.2(b), 163-227.2(h), and 163-227.6 Summary: The New Hanover County Board of Elections must determine hours for the 2022 General Election Absentee One-Stop Voting period. The deadline to submit the early voting plan to the NC State Board of Elections is August 5, 2022. For all sites approved for one-stop voting, a county board of elections must provide the following: 1.County boards of election shall conduct one-stop voting beginning on the third Thursday before an election and ending on the last Saturday before the election. 2.Mandatory weekday hours for one-stop sites are 8:00 am - 7:30 pm during even-numbered years. 3.Mandatory hours on the last Saturday before Election Day are 8:00 am – 3:00 pm. The following uniform weekend and weekday requirements enacted in Session Law 2018-112 (Senate Bill 325) are still in effect in even-numbered years: •Weekday Uniform Hours – All additional one-stop sites (not the county office) must have the same schedule. If the Board of Elections office is open for any hours outside of normal business hours (except for the last Saturday), then the weekday uniform hours’ requirements would apply to the Board of Elections office. •Weekend Uniform Hours – If any one-stop site (including the county office) is open on a Saturday or Sunday (excluding the last Saturday), then all one-stop sites must be open for the same number of hours on that day. Sites may be open on one or both Sundays and sites may be open for different hours on a weekend, provided the number of hours is the same. •If Any Site, Then All Sites – Any day a one-stop site is open, all one-stop sites must be open on that day. At a minimum, the New Hanover County Board of Elections early voting site located in the Paynter Room at the Northeast Library must be open during regular business hours (8:00 am – 5:00 pm). Any other schedule for this early voting location, or the inclusion of additional early voting sites, requires the unanimous approval of a one-stop implementation plan that complies with the new uniform weekday and weekend requirements. If the county board is unable to reach unanimity regarding a one-stop plan, a member or members of the board may petition the State Board to adopt a plan for it. If petitioned, the State Board may also receive and consider an alternative petition from another member or members of the county board. Item # 2 Item # 4 Document/s Included: Absentee One-Stop Voting Proposed Sites; Absentee One-Stop Voting Proposed Plan; Absentee One- Stop Voting Supplemental Statistics, Resolution to Adopt the 2022 Primary Election One-Stop Implementation Plan (Provided at Board Meeting) Board Action Required: Action Required 2022 General Election Absentee One-Stop Voting Period Proposed Sites Proposed Sites There are five proposed sites to be used during the 2022 General Election Absentee One-Stop Voting Period. All the facilities are public and are permissible for use. The proposed sites are as follows: NHC Northeast Regional Library David E. Paynter Room 1241 Military Cutoff Road Wilmington, NC 28405 NHC Senior Resource Center Multipurpose Room 2222 South College Road Wilmington, NC 28401 CFCC Health Sciences Building Rooms L-112, L-110A 415 North 2nd Street, Wilmington, NC 28401 Carolina Beach Town Hall Police Training Room 1121 Lake Park Boulevard Carolina Beach, North Carolina 28428 CFCC - North Campus McKeithan Center BB&T Auditorium 4500 Blue Clay Road Castle Hayne, North Carolina 28429 2022 General Election Absentee One-Stop Voting Period Base One-Stop Plan 2022 General Election Proposed One-Stop Implementation Plan Week #Days Week 1 Thurs - Fri Mon - Fri Sat Sun Mon - Fri Sat 775 $187,325.00 15 Total Hours of Operation Five Sites Estimated Costs Five Sites Days of Operation 1121 Lake Park Boulevard Proposed One-Stop Sites CFCC Health Sciences Building Rooms L-110A and L-112 415 North 2nd Street CFCC North Campus-McKeithan Center BB&T Auditorium 4500 Blue Clay Road Address Northeast Regional Library David E. Paynter Room 1241 Military Cutoff Rd Senior Resource Center Multi-Purpose Room 2222 South College Road Days of the Week Operating Hours All Sites 8-7:30 RoomSite Name Carolina Beach Town Hall Police Training Room Total Hours of Operation 155 Week 2 8-7:30 12-5 12-5 Week 3 8-7:30 8-3 2022 General Election Absentee One-Stop Voting Period Supplemental Statistics 2022 General Election Absentee One-Stop Implementation Plan Supplemental Voter Turnout Statistics Election Date Total Ballots Cast Percent Voter Turnout 11/8/2016 112,588 66.26% 11/6/2018 89,403 51.81% 11/3/2020 132,309 74.60% Total Votes Cast 112,588 Total One Stop 70,696 % Vote at One Stop 62.79% Total Votes Cast 89,403 Total One Stop 53,286 % Vote at One Stop 59.60% Total Votes Cast 132,309 Total One Stop 87,341 % Vote at One Stop 66.01% One Stop Site 2016 General Election *2018 General Election **2020 General Election*** GVT*18,917 14,054 11,721 SRC 18,843 13,243 9,563 NLB 17,164 14,032 15,744 CAB 8,901 7,273 0 CFCC 6,871 4,684 0 ARB 8,010 CBC 8,040 CFC 6,038 MSL 10,890 CFN 8,052 PVL 9,283 TOTAL 70,696 53,286 87,341 *** 2020 General Election - Included two Sundays (4,993 votes cast) 2016 General Election 2018 General Election 2020 General Election * 2016 General Election - Included one Sunday (4,254 votes cast ) ** 2018 General Election - Included one Sunday (1,298 votes cast) 8,901 6,871 18,917 17,164 18,843 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000 CAB CFCC GVT NLB SRC To t a l V o t e s C a s t One-Stop Site Total Votes Cast at Absentee One-Stop Sites by Site in the 2016 General Election Total 2 9,828 8,966 9,530 8,555 8,541 8,215 7,610 6,893 1,436 1,084 36 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 8 AM 9 AM 10 AM 11 AM 12 PM 1 PM 2 PM 3 PM 4 PM 5 PM 6 PM 7 PM To t a l V o t e s C a s t Time of Day Total Votes Cast at Absentee One-Stop Sites by Time of Day in the 2016 General Election Total * Voter History for ten voters was added manually during the reconciliation process after the election. 5,084 4,995 3,218 5,122 4,943 4,742 4,383 4,727 3,508 4,254 4,290 4,814 6,150 6,804 3,652 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 Thurs, 10/20 Fri, 10/21 Sat, 10/22 Mon, 10/24 Tues, 10/25 Wed, 10/26 Thurs, 10/27 Fri, 10/28 Sat, 10/29 Sun, 10/30 Mon, 10/31 Tues, 11/1 Wed, 11/3 Thurs, 11/4 Fri, 11/5 To t a l V o t e s C a s t Date Total Votes Cast at Absentee One-Stop Sites by Date in the 2016 General Election Total 7,273 4,684 14,054 14,032 13,243 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 CAB CFCC GVT NLB SRC To t a l V o t e s C a s t One-Stop Sites Total Votes Cast at Absentee One-Stop Sites by Site in the 2018 General Election Total 900 2,299 4,201 6,376 6,956 6,915 6,453 5,929 5,280 3,818 2,550 1,601 8 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 7 AM 8 AM 9 AM 10 AM 11 AM 12 PM 1 PM 2 PM 3 PM 4 PM 5 PM 6 PM 7 PM To t a l V o t e s C a s t Time of Day Total Votes Cast at Absentee One-Stop Sites by Time of Day in the 2018 General Election Total * Voter History for three voters was added manually during the reconciliation process after the election. 3,489 3,375 3,734 3,965 3,824 3,349 3,097 2,826 1,968 1,298 3,351 3,684 3,103 3,706 5,216 3,298 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 Wed, 10/17 Thurs, 10/18 Fri, 10/19 Mon, 10/22 Tues, 10/23 Wed, 10/24 Thurs, 10/25 Fri, 10/26 Sat, 10/27 Sun, 10/28 Mon, 10/29 Tues, 10/30 Wed, 10/31 Thurs, 11/1 Fri, 11/2Sat, 11/3 To t a l V o t e s C a s t Date Total Votes Cast at Absentee One-Stop Sites by Date in the 2018 General Election Total 8,010 8,040 6,038 8,052 11,721 10,890 15,744 9,283 9,563 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 ARB CBC CFC CFN GVT MSL NLB PVL SRC To t a l V o t e s C a s t One-Stop Site Total Votes Cast at Absentee One-Stop Sites by Site in the 2020 General Election Total 2 5,914 6,553 7,816 8,322 10,779 10,081 10,410 9,383 8,160 5,424 3,807 690 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 7 AM 8 AM 9 AM 10 AM 11 AM 12 PM 1 PM 2 PM 3 PM 4 PM 5 PM 6 PM 7 PM To t a l V o t e s C a s t Time of Day Total Votes Cast at Absentee One-Stop Sites by Time of Day in the 2020 General Election Total 8,552 8,323 3,470 3,056 7,864 7,086 6,249 5,189 5,184 2,133 1,937 4,798 4,635 4,605 4,734 5,791 3,735 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 Thurs, 10/15 Fri, 10/16 Sat, 10/17 Sun, 10/18 Mon, 10/19 Tues, 10/20 Wed, 10/21 Thurs, 10/22 Fri, 10/23 Sat, 10/24 Sun, 10/25 Mon, 10/26 Tues, 10/27 Wed, 10/28 Thurs, 10/29 Fri, 10/30 Sat, 10/31 To t a l V o t e s C a s t Date Total Votes Cast at Absentee One-Stop Sites by Date in the 2020 General Election Total Regular Meeting New Hanover County Board of Elections July 12, 2022 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 # 5