Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard Meeting Agenda Packet 06-13-2023MEETING AGENDA Date: June 13, 2023 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 Jenna Dahlgren, Elections Logistics Coordinator Lyana G. Hunter, Member Joan Geiszler-Ludlum, Admin. Elections Technician Bruce Kemp, Member Visitor(s): Tufanna Bradley, Assistant County Manager; Kemp Burpeau, Deputy County Attorney AGENDA ITEMS 1.Meeting Opening a.Call to Order b.Preliminary Announcement i.Silence Phones ii.Recording & Streaming iii.Other c.Pledge of Allegiance d.Approval of Agenda e.Approval of Minutes (5/9/23, 11/7/22, 5/27/22, 5/26/22, 11/9/21) 2.Public Comment and Question Period •2-minute limit •20-minute limit total 3.Director’s Report a.Financial Update b.List Maintenance c.Administrative Updates 4.New Business •Chair Carter’s request to discuss Member Kemp’s proposed motion that Director sends email to State Board to improve observer training for election officials as it relates specifically to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-45(c) 5.General Discussion 6.Closed Session (N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-318.11(6)) 7.Adjournment *Agenda packets are sent via email in advance of meetings. Regular Meeting New Hanover County Board of Elections June 13, 2023 Subject: Approval of Agenda Summary: N/A Board Action Required: Staff recommends approval Item # 1d Regular Meeting New Hanover County Board of Elections June 13, 2023 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 5/9/23, 11/7/22, 5/27/22, 5/26/22, and 11/9/21 meetings. Board Action Required: Staff recommends approval Item # 1d Item # 1e Board Meeting 05/09/2023 Page | 1 REGULAR MEETING New Hanover County Board of Elections May 9, 2023 5:15 P.M. ATTENDANCE Members: Oliver Carter III, Chair Derrick Miller, Secretary Lyana Hunter, Member Bruce Kemp, Member Staff: Rae Hunter-Havens, Elections Director Caroline Dawkins, Elections Program & Outreach Coordinator Noelle Powers, Elections Systems Specialist Joan Geiszler-Ludlum, Administrative Technician Visitors: Tufanna Bradley, Assistant County Manager; Kemp Burpeau, Deputy County Attorney Public Attendees: Ellen Jo Kraemer; Julius Rothlein, NHC GOP; Clarice Reber, Ellen Ellen Haragan, League of Women Voters LCF Virtual Attendees: 1 unidentified telephone attendee 1. MEETING OPENING a. Call to Order Chair Carter called the meeting to order at 5:15 p.m. The New Hanover County Board of Elections meeting was held in the Board of Elections office, Longleaf Room, 1241A Military Cutoff Road, Wilmington, NC, in the conference room. All members were present. b. Preliminary Announcements Chair Carter reminded the audience to silence their cell phones; that the meeting is being recorded and live streamed over the internet; and that the AC is working. c. Pledge of Allegiance Chair Carter called on the audience to rise and recite the pledge of allegiance. Formatted: Indent: First line: 0" Board Meeting 05/09/2023 Page | 2 d. Approval of Agenda Member Kemp moved to approve the agenda as submitted, second by Secretary Miller. Motion carried unanimously. e. Approval of Minutes Member Kemp moved to approve the minutes of 11/1/2022 and 4/11/2023, second by Member Hunter. Motion carried unanimously. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT AND QUESTIONS Chair Carter noted receipt of an email from Ruth Odom, discouraging the Board from accepting grant funds from Alliance for Elections Excellence, alleging that it is funded by Mark Zuckerberg. Chair Carter asked Director Hunter-Havens whether New Hanover County has had any conversation with the Alliance about future grants? The Director said the New Hanover County received grant funds through the State Board of Elections in the 2020 Presidential Election, but has not directly solicited nor received any grants from this group. Chair Carter noted receipt of an email from Julius Rothlein, on behalf of the New Hanover County Republican Party, listing 9 questions about the Board’s interpretation of the meaning of opening and closing the polls; observers’ requests to site leads for information; polling place layouts that limit observers’ line of sight; public access to the absentee-by-mail register; challenges to absentee ballots; objection to duplication of UOCAVA ballots outside of Board meetings, access to observe Logic and Accuracy (L&A) testing; allegation of curbside voting by able-bodied voters; complaint that a chief judge denied an observer’s request to review the blank preprinted ballots; and the process for purging voter rolls of convicted felons who have not completed parole or probation. Chair Carter briefly responded to several of these questions. He explained that Early Voting sites are “opened” once, on the first day of early voting, and closed once, on the last day of early voting. He invited Mr. Rothlein to identify alternative polling places in those precincts where observers felt that layout issues made it difficult to observe as much as they would have liked. Chair Carter explained that Voter Challenges may not be made on the basis of a change in the voter’s address. Later in the meeting, Director Hunter-Havens addressed the steps taken by the State Board of Elections and all County Boards of Election to comply with the recent Supreme Court ruling upholding the voter identification law. Mr. Rothlein also asked the due date for the chief judge and judge nominations by the party chairs. Director Hunter-Havens said those dates were included in the recent email sent to the party chairs. While the statutory deadline for recommendations is not until early October, the parties are encourged to submit their recommendations by ___________, 2023, in order to allow the majority of Preinct Officials to be appointed at the Board’s Regular meerting in August. Board Meeting 05/09/2023 Page | 3 Seeing and hearing no additional public comments, Chair Carter closed the Public Comment period. 3. DIRECTOR’S REPORT Chair Carter called on Director Hunter-Havens for her reports. a. Financial Update The Director gave the FY2022-2023 update through April. The budget is still running a slight deficit due to the unbudgeted cost to rent the warehouse facility for secure storage and space for equipment testing. She anticipates that expense will not require additional appropriation and can be absorbed within the budget as adopted due to other savings. b. List Maintenance Director Hunter-Havens reported the voter registration data provided from the Statewide Elections Information Management System (SEIMS) through April: • Redesignated voter status as Removed1 for 344 voters in April 2023, consistent with NCN.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-82.14. • Processed 807 new registration forms, 391 registration forms without changes, and 632 registration updates in April 2023. c. Legal Updates Director Hunter-Havens reported on the three recent decisions of the North Carolina Supreme Court that affect elections administration. • Felon Voting Rights (CSI v. Moore) – The North Carolina Supreme Court decision will require persons convicted of a felony to complete their sentence, including active sentence and any period of probation, post-release supervision, or parole, before regaining their right to register and vote. For the 2022 General Election, felons who were not incarcerated were eligible to register and vote. The State Board of Elections (SBE) has updated the voter registration form on their website with new instructions for felons. This office is printing off this updated form for immediate use so as not to mislead felons or others who are unaware of the change. SBE has instructed the county boards to process any voter registrations forms received with the old language. SBE is working with the NC Department of Corrections to update the data feed to ensure that we receive correct information on ineligible felons. SBE is also updating SEIMS to reflect the change in eligibility criteria. 1 For purposes of List Maintenance, “Removed” means that the voter’s registration status is changed to indicate the voter is no longer eligible to vote in this County. By law, “Removed” voters are not deleted from the voter registration rolls. A voter’s status may change to “Removed” when the voter moves out of the county or state, had died, is convicted of a felony and serving their sentence, or due to a long period of inactivity within the routine procedures of List Maintenance. Board Meeting 05/09/2023 Page | 4 • Photo ID (Holmes v. Moore) – Several years ago, the General Assembly and the Governorenacted a law requiring voters to present photo IDs. Certain voters and groups filed a lawsuit complaining that the photo ID requirement was unconstitutional. In 2021, the NC Supreme Court ruled that the law was indeed unconstitutional, and it enjoined the implementation of the photo ID law. Recently, the NC Supreme Court reconsidered its 2021 ruling and reversed its decision. As a result, photo ID will be required beginning with the municipal elections this year. SBE is preparing to implement the photo ID law and will issue updated guidance and training materials. • Redistricting (Harper v. Hall and NCLCV v. Hall) – The NC Supreme Court reversed a previous ruling and now holds that partisan gerrymandering claims based on the North Carolina constitution are political questions not subject to judicial review in state court. The effect is to invalidate the state legislature districts and congressional districts redrawn in 2022 and 2021. The decision allows the General Assembly to draw new districts for state House, state Senate, and US House seats for 2024. This decision will require that these new districts are enacted before candidate filing in early December 2023. Member Kemp asked if photo ID will be required for absentee-by-mail voting. The Director said the request for an absentee ballot already requires inclusion of either the voter’s driver’s license number or last four of their social security number. When returning the ballot, she expects the voter must return a photocopy of their qualifying ID or sign a statement that the voter has a reasonable impediment preventing compliance, which will likely include inability to make a copy of the ID, as was the case in 2016 . Secretary Miller asked if the precinct consolidation has been approved. Director Hunter- Havens said the decision is before the SBE Executive Director. She has transferred our data to the SBE system to verify the precinct boundaries as submitted, which were accurate. The next step is the SBE Director’s approval. 4. GENERAL DISCUSSION Chair Carter opened the discussion by calling on the Board members for any matters they wish to raise. Secretary Miller said he has had various discussions regarding the planned Board of Elections office space and presented a draft letter he proposes this Board send to the County Commissioners and County Manager if the Board agrees. He distributed copies to the Board members to read. Chair Carter thanked Secretary Miller for drafting the letter. Secretary Miller proposed to add the Director to the first sentence to mirror the proposed signatures. After review and Board Meeting 05/09/2023 Page | 5 discussion, the Board agreed by consensus to send the letter as drafted, with the proposed addition, to the County Commissioners and County Manager with copies to the Board members. Chair Carter said that, just after the Board’s April meeting, he received a newly revised Numbered Memo 2021-01, Procedures for Purchasing Voting Equipment. It details what voting equipment is authorized for use and all the steps required to obtain approval to purchase new voting equipment. He said the DS850 is one of the approved types of equipment. He noted that this Board has wrestled with the fact that the DS850 does not print a results tape as referenced in Numbered Memo 2018-05, and possibly in the statutes as well. He made the case that 2021-01 supersedes earlier Numbered Memos that require a different style of report. As the Director has said, the DS850 is the authorized machine, even though it does not print a specific type of report called for by a different Numbered Memo. He said he wanted to bring the revised Numbered Memo to the Board’s attention. Chair Carter asked how to address the outstanding Board minutes if this Board’s term ends before they are approved. Director Hunter-Havens said she would share them with the Board members who were part of those meetings. Chair Carter asked for priority attention to drafting the minutes from the May 2022 primary canvass and the November 2021 municipal election. 5. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further general discussion, Chair Carter moved that the meeting be adjourned at 5:55 p.m., second by Secretary Miller. Motion carried unanimously. The next Board meeting is scheduled to be held on June 13, 2023, at 5:15 p.m. at the Board of Election office, Longleaf Room, 1241A Military Cutoff Road, Wilmington, NC. APPROVED BY: RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY: __________________________ __________________________________ DERRICK R. MILLER RAE HUNTER-HAVENS SECRETARY ELECTIONS DIRECTOR Board Meeting 11/7/2022 Page | 1 SPECIAL MEETING New Hanover County Board of Elections November 7, 2022 5:00 P.M. ATTENDANCE Members: Oliver Carter III, Chair Derrick R. Miller, Secretary 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: Tufanna BradleyLisa Wurszbacher, Assistant County Manager; Kemp Burpeau, Deputy County Attorney Public Attendees: Steven Smith; Elizabeth James; Nichole Kingston; Lynn Dunn; Matthew Emborsky, Julius Rothlein, NHC GOP; Jill Hopman, Carter Jewell, NHCDP; Sheila Fellerath, League of Women Voters LCF; Diane Zaryki; Chad Whitaker; A. Crouch Virtual Attendees: Jessica O’Neill; Thom Tracy; Cher Pridgen 1. MEETING OPENING a. Call to Order Chair Carter called the meeting to order at 5:03 p.m. The New Hanover County Board of Elections meeting was held in the Board of Elections office, Long Leaf Room, 1241A Military Cutoff Road, Wilmington, NC. All members were present. b. Preliminary Announcements Chair Carter reminded the audience to silence their cell phones, and that the meeting is being recorded and live streamed over the internet. Tropical weather update: Tropical Depression Nicole appears headed toward North Carolina and is due in the area by Friday. There are two more tropical depressions behind it. Formatted: Indent: First line: 0" Board Meeting 11/7/2022 Page | 2 Chair Carter reviewed the schedule of upcoming Board meetings: 11/8/2022 5:00 p.m. Count and approve absentee-by-mail and One Stop ballots; Preliminary hearing for 3 absentee-by-mail challenges 11/15/2022 5:15 p.m. Regular meeting 11/17/2022 2:00 p.m. Pre-canvass meeting 11/18/2022 11:00 a.m. Canvass meeting Chair Carter proposed adding contingent meeting dates in case a recount is required. He moved to schedule an additional meeting on Thursday, November 10 at 5:00 p.m., to be cancelled by noon on Wednesday, November 9 if no contests are within the statutory margin requiring a recount, and review and approve any additional absentee-by-mail ballots received but held for counting at the Pre-canvass meeting, second by Member Kemp. Chair Carter called for discussion of the motion. Director Hunter-Havens said adding another special absentee meeting will require manually adding an additional date field to the Absentee Registry. In addition, holding the scheduled regular meeting, which previous Boards usually cancelled, adds staff work during the already busy canvass period. Member Hunter said she appreciates the possibility of spreading out the work, but she would rather keep the regular meeting on November 15 and not schedule another meeting on November 10. Secretary Miller said the absentee-by-mail volume for this election is less than the volume of 2020 and can be handled in the Pre-Canvass meeting. He said he is concerned with adding additional work and deadlines for staff. Member Bryan asked about scheduling the requested public review of the absentee-by- mail envelopes, and said a recount will only be needed if a contest is close and can be cancelled if not needed. Director Hunter-Havens said the public review is scheduled for November 16 for two hours in the Oak Room of the Northeast Library. Staff will manage that review around other required tasks. Chair Carter said the challenge period runs through either November 17 or 18, so that review will occur before the challenge deadline. As Member Kemp pointed out, the meetings on November 10 or November 15 were not included in the required published notice, and therefore the Board might lack statutory authority to “count” the absentee ballots on those two meeting dates. He said he was comfortable with not scheduling an additional meeting on November 10. He suggested another alternative: cancel November 15 as a regular meeting and instead designate it as a special absentee meeting. Member Hunter said it appears that we will have a meeting on November 15 either way. By making it a special absentee meeting, it would be easier to cancel if the meeting is not needed due to the shorter notice requirement for cancelling a special meeting. Board Meeting 11/7/2022 Page | 3 Member Kemp asked if public review would be a moot point if the Board approved the Applications on November 15 because it would prevent filing a challenge. It may be better to schedule the public review after the canvass when there is less pressure on staff. Chair Carter said he recalls saying that in the primary but later realized he was not correct. Once approved, it is still possible to challenge an Application which can be removed if the challenge is upheld on its merits. Approval is an administrative task while a challenge moves it to a quasi-judicial process in which the Board certainly can reconsider a previous approval decision. Chair Carter thanked the Board for their discussion and decided to withdraw the motion on the table. He repeated the schedule as he had presented it at the beginning of the meeting. c. Pledge of Allegiance Chair Carter called on the audience to rise and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. d. Approval of Agenda Chair Carter moved approval of the agenda as submitted, second by Member Kemp. Motion carried unanimously. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT AND QUESTION PERIOD Chair Carter called upon the public in-person attendees for their comments or questions, limited to two minutes each with a total maximum time of ten minutes. He requested that speakers give their name and identify an organization that they represent, if any. He requested that comments address this meeting’s agenda which is the consideration of absentee ballots. Chair Carter acknowledges receiving email comments from Julius Rothlein and summarized the topics briefly. Mr. Rothlein had questions about an incident that occurred the previous week during One Stop early voting, where the thumb drive had to be replaced when it was full; public records request for the results tape and other documentation for the DS850; and a request to retain documents from the 2020 Presidential Election. Addressing the last topic first, Chair Carter said that the law requires retention of election records for 18 months, and we are well past that retention period. Director Hunter-Havens said she has received a public records request from the Republican Party about those records. She will keep those records until the public records request is completed. Board Meeting 11/7/2022 Page | 4 Chair Carter asked Mr. Rothlein if he had any other comments. Mr. Rothlein asked the Board to review all Applications1 in this meeting, instead of only a sample, because the Republican Party will not be able to review them before Election Day. In support of his request, Mr. Rothlein said, in their review to date, they have found 17 returned ballots that allegedly were missing the chain of custody document. Chair Carter called on Director Hunter-Havens for any comment she may have. The Director said 3 specific instances were reported to her. After investigation, staff found that none of the absentee ballots returned in-person were missing the log sheet. Mr. Rothlein said he would provide specific names by the next day. Chair Carter recognized Jill Hopman, New Hanover County Democratic Party, for her comments. Ms. Hopman asked at which upcoming meeting will disapproved absentee ballots be available for review. Chair Carter said the next public review is scheduled for November 16. He added that the Board has not rejected very many so far. Director Hunter-Havens said that currently there is enough time to spoil and reissue a ballot if the submitted ballot is deficient, which cuts down on the number of rejected absentee-by-mail ballots. She said the majority of disapproved ballots occurs with those received after Election Day due to late mailing or missing postmarks. Secretary Miller asked that the parties get the word out to remind voters, when mailing their absentee-by-mail ballot, to go into the post office and have the clerk put the postmark on the envelope. Member Bryan noted that there appears to be bipartisan interest in these public review meetings, and he asked that the Director make sufficient time and staff available to allow for the review. Chair Carter recognized Nichole Kingston. She said she sent an email to the Director asking when the results tapes for the early voting and absentee-by-mail ballots counted at the 2:00 p.m. meeting on Election Day will be available for public review. Chair Carter said a copy of the Election Day results is posted at each polling place. Ms. Kingston said she is asking about the absentee and One Stop results tapes. Director Hunter-Havens said she can leave a copy of the DS200 tapes at the front desk for review sometime on the day after Election Day, and the results will be posted on the State Board website shortly after polls close on Election Day. Ms. Kingston asked how long the precinct results tapes will remain posted in the precincts after placement by the chief judge on Election Day. Director Hunter-Havens said that is up to the individual site and is not regulated by the county board of elections. 1 When a voter chooses to submit an absentee ballot by mail or personal delivery, the voter places the completed ballot into a special envelope called a “Container Return Envelope”. On the outside of the Envelope is a pre-printed form called an “Absentee Ballot Application”. The voter is required to complete this Application and have it signed by two witnesses or have it notarized. In almost all cases, the Board must approve the Application before the Envelope is opened and the ballot removed. The terms “Absentee Ballot Application” and “Container-Return Envelope are often used interchangeably in casual conversation. In these minutes, “Envelope” will generally refer to the physical envelope, while “Application” will generally refer to the form printed on the outside of the Envelope. Board Meeting 11/7/2022 Page | 5 Chair Carter recognized Matt Emborsky, who repeated his previous request for results tapes for votes tabulated by the DS850 signed by the Board as required by Numbered Memo 2018-05. Chair Carter said there us an abstract which the Board signs, and he called on Director Hunter-Havens. The Director said that, when the cited Numbered Memo was issued, we were using DS200s with thumb drives to save the data, reload it on the machine, and ran the report. In 2018 the DS850 was certified for purchase and use, which does not have that same capability. Instead, we print a zero-results report at the beginning and, on Election Day, print the DS200 tapes, upload the data from the thumb drives and print the abstract. Also on Election Day, we close the DS200s that were used at the One Stop sites, follow the same steps to store and reload the data, and print the reports that the Board signs. Then we upload the data, sort the results by precinct, and print the abstract. Similar steps are followed with the absentee meeting scanned ballots on Election Day. All of these procedures meet the State Board’s requirements, with which we are fully compliant. But it is not possible to print absentee meeting tapes each meeting because that would violate the statute that prohibits counting and printing any contest results until after 2:00 p.m. on Election Day, with all results posted once the polls close. Chair Carter asked the Director when those reports will be available for public review? The Director said the One Stop and completed absentee results will be uploaded to the SBE on Election night and will be available there. That information would then be available by a public records request after that, but obviously not before the polls close. Chair Carter asked if the information could be available at the scheduled public review session on November 16? The Director said a copy could be available to look at, but she would not provide multiple copies. Chair Carter asked if each of the five scheduled meetings would require five separate printouts, or would the results be aggregated? The Director said the results would be aggregated. Addressing Mr. Emborsky, Chair Carter asked whether November 16 would be acceptable? Mr. Emborsky said November 16 would be acceptable. Whatever the DS850 produces is acceptable. Director Hunter-Havens clarified that the DS850 does not compile and print a report of the One Stop and absentee-by-mail results. The report is compiled from each thumb drive by the Electionware, and then an aggregated results report is printed. The DS850 does not produce results tapes. She reminded the Board that all preparatory steps performed at each absentee meeting, and the closing results from One Stop sites on Election Day, which are different types of voting, are performed in public meetings in front of the Board and the public. Chair Carter said that by making as much of the documentation as possible available at the November 16 public review session, we are being as responsive as we can be to the request. Board Meeting 11/7/2022 Page | 6 Secretary Miller thanked the Director for her explanation and said it becomes clearer each time she explains it to us. He said this is his fourth time hearing the explanation. Chair Carter called on Mr. Emborsky again for any additional comment. Mr. Emborsky said he knows other counties print tapes and it obviously happens with the L & A testing because he has seen those tapes. He has asked several times for a way for the public to watch the manual upload of the data on Electionware on Election night in the interest of transparency. As support for his position that if the Board is required to observe the process, the public should be able to do so also, Mr. Emborksy cited Numbered Memo 2018-05 and N.C. Gen. Stat. §143-318.10, which he interprets as requiring theat the upload be done in the presence of the Board and in a public meeting,. Chair Carter said that just because two Board members, which is not a quorum, go to the secure office where the loading of the results takes place, the public meeting remains in the meeting room. Director Hunter-Havens said that the reporting of results on the night of Election Day does not occur as part of a public meeting. Chair Carter called on Diane Zaryki. Ms. Zaryki asked how the printed ballots that are distributed in each voting site are accounted for. These are distributed in case the printer that is used to print-on-demand ballots malfunctions. Chair Carter called on Director Hunter-Havens to respond to the question. Director Hunter-Havens said she has a baseline count of all ballot styles and how many are assigned to each voting site based on prior voting trends. There may be specific ballot styles assigned to each precinct to account for the legislative districts. For example, there were five ballot styles in this election. There is a baseline count for each voting site. The site leads report daily how many ballots were used and how many remain at the end of the day. Those reports are available for review through a public records request. Ms. Zaryki asked whether the unused ballots are stored according to the Federal Election Records Act, as well as documented. Director Hunter-Havens said unvoted ballots are meticulously accounted for when the site leads return their materials each day and when the chief judges return their materials on Election Day. These unvoted ballots are retained for two months. Seeing and hearing no other public attendees wishing to comment, Chair Carter closed the Public Comment period. Board Meeting 11/7/2022 Page | 7 3. STATUTORILY-REQUIRED BUSINESS a. Review of Absentee Ballot Applications Chair Carter called on Director Hunter-Havens to present the Applications for review. Director Hunter-Havens said there are 1,409 Applications for review. She recommends approving 1,387 Applications which meet all requirements. Chair Carter requested that the Director proceed to present the Applications with special circumstances first. Director Hunter-Havens presented 5 Applications which required cure certifications for missing information. After the Board reviewed the Envelopes, Chair Carter moved to accept the 5 Applications and cure certifications, second by Member Kemp. Motion carried unanimously. Director Hunter-Havens presented 17 Applications which had an incomplete address for a witness. Following SBE Numbered Memo 2021-03 guidance, staff were able to determine the correct address and recommend approval. If the staff cannot determine the correct address, the ballot is spoiled and reissued, and the voter contacted to explain the reason. [Chair Carter gave the gavel to Secretary Miller and left the room at 6:19 p.m.] During the Board review of the 17 Applications, Member Bryan raised a question about 1 Application, saying that it appeared from the signatures that the same person signed the Application in two places. Secretary Miller set it aside for further review when Chair Carter returned to the meeting. [Chair Carter resumed the gavel at 6:21 p.m.] After the Board reviewed the Envelopes, Secretary Miller moved approval of 16 Applications, second by Member Kemp. Hearing no further discussion, Secretary Miller called for the vote. Motion carried unanimously. Director Hunter-Havens presented 4 Applications with individual issues: • 1 MAT team error where the disabled voter’s name order and date of birth on the absentee request were incorrectly entered and the follow-up letter did not reach the voter. After consulting with the SBE, the Director sent a second MAT team to the disabled voter with an emergency absentee ballot which is now before the Board; • 1 was returned to Wake County Board of Elections due to US Postal Service error, and then forwarded here, raising a chain of custody concern; • 1 from a disabled person who was unable to sign their name; Board Meeting 11/7/2022 Page | 8 • 1 One Stop return where the site lead initialed after the voter completed the ballot return log sheet. [Member Kemp left the meeting at 6:23 p.m. and returned at 6:25 p.m.] After the Board reviewed the Envelopes, Member Kemp moved approval of 4 Applications, second by Secretary Miller. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Carter called the vote. Motion carried unanimously. Chair Carter returned to the Application that was set aside at Member Bryan’s request due to the signature question. Member Bryan moved to reject the Application, second by Member Kemp. After discussion of whether the signatures appear nearly identical and the witness addresses appear to have been written by the same hand, and how staff might approach the voter and witnesses to clarify, Member Bryan agreed to table his motion to allow staff time to check with the voter, second by Chair Carter. Motion to table carried unanimously. Director Hunter-Havens presented 1 Envelope where the voter wrote their name in several places, and 1 Envelope where a neighbor returned the Envelope for a voter to a One Stop location which is allowed for a disabled voter but is not generally permissible. The absentee ballot return log attests that the voter is disabled, but the voter assistance section on the Envelope was not completed. Staff called the voter who confirmed that he had asked the neighbor to return the ballot for him. The neighbor only assisted in returning the ballot. Member Bryan asked whether staff verified the voter’s disability with the witnesses. Director Hunter-Havens said that the staff is not authorized or trained to question a voter about a disability and that staff only spoke with the witness, who confirmed the voter has a disability. Chair Carter said that the log sheet disability section is clearly signed, but the section on the Envelope is not completed. After Board review, Member Kemp moved approval of these 2 Applications, second by Member Hunter. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Carter called the vote. Motion carried unanimously. Director Hunter-Havens presented 5 Envelopes which showed damage when received or were taped by the voter. The voter was contacted in each case and confirmed the return envelope was sealed when received. After Board review, Member Kemp moved approval of the 5 Applications, second by Member Hunter. Hearing no discussion, Chair Carter called the vote. Motion carried unanimously. Director Hunter-Havens presented 5 Envelopes with stray marks, stains, or white-out on them. After Board review, Member Kemp moved approval of these 5 Applications, second by Member Hunter. Hearing no discussion, Chair Carter called the vote. Motion carried unanimously. Board Meeting 11/7/2022 Page | 9 b. Oath Certificates for Absentee Ballots Before moving into the next batch of Absentee Envelopes, Chair Carter took up two Oath Certificates, saying he understood they are time-sensitive. Director Hunter-Havens said, in order to deliver the list of voters who have already voted, by absentee-by-mail or One Stop, to each precinct in the morning of Election Day, as required by statute, she asked the Board to consider the lists of the approved Civilian absentee-by-mail ballots, the approved One Stop early voting ballots, and the approved Military and Overseas ballots, as of 5:00 p.m. on November 7, 2022, which is the day before the election. In response to a question from the Chair, the Director confirmed that the lists include all ballots received as of 5:00 p.m. today. The Chair and the Board members executed the certificates as indicated. Jenna Dahlgren, notary public and Elections Logistics Specialist, notarized the signatures as required. a. Review of Absentee Ballot Applications (continued) Chair Carter returned to the review of absentee-by-mail Applications. Director Hunter-Havens presented 8 Envelopes received with minor tears, and 1 needing address verification for a witness, none indicating any evidence of tampering. After Board review, Member Kemp moved approval of the 9 Applications, second by Chair Carter. Hearing no discussion, Chair Carter called the vote. Motion carried unanimously. Director Hunter-Havens presented 7 Envelopes which were not fully sealed when received, none indicating any evidence of tampering and no possibility of a ballot being removed. After Board review, Member Kemp moved approval of the 7 Applications, second by Member Bryan. Hearing no discussion, Chair Carter called the vote. Motion carried unanimously. Beth Pugh, Elections Specialist, reported she spoke with the voter whose neighbor returned his absentee ballot at his request. The voter confirmed he is disabled but does not recall the events around marking and returning his ballot. Ms. Pugh called both witnesses and left messages on voice mail. The ballot will be held for approval, pending further information. Director Hunter-Havens presented 16 absentee-by-mail ballots received from the US Postal Service center in Duluth, Georgia. The State Board contacted USPS and were told these ballots were routed to Duluth in error. Staff has reviewed them and found nothing suspicious about the group of ballots and there was no common pattern noted. One subgroup of four came from a family of four with the same address, but again nothing looked suspicious. The State Board recommends approval, noting that the incorrect routing is not the voters’ fault and that the ballots arrived timely. Member Bryan Board Meeting 11/7/2022 Page | 10 observed that all 16 were postmarked in Charlotte. The Board members reviewed all 16 Envelopes. [Member Bryan left the meeting at 7:23 p.m.; Chair Carter left the meeting at 7:24 p.m. both returned at 7:26 p.m.] After Board review, Member Kemp moved approval of the 16 Applications, second by Member Bryan. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Carter called the vote. Motion carried unanimously. Director Hunter-Havens presented 2 Envelopes with sealant issues: 1 was sealed in the center and popped open, and 1 appeared that it was sealed when the voter received it, likely due to exposure to the recent rain, and the voter had to unseal it to put their ballot in it. For the second Envelope, the voter gave no telephone or email contact, so staff were unable to confirm what happened. After Board review, Member Kemp moved approval of these 2 Applications, second by Member Hunter. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Carter called the vote. Motion carried unanimously. Director Hunter-Havens presented 4 Envelopes delivered in person with issues on the log sheets. Two were returned to One Stop sites: The first log sheet does not include the returner’s address and the site lead did not initial; the second was returned curbside , which is an election official error. Numbered Memo 2020-23 guidance states that failure to comply with the logging requirement is insufficient alone to invalidate the ballot. The third case is a voter in a rehab facility where the MAT official did not get a log sheet completed. The fourth case involved a mother’s boyfriend who returned the ballot when the voter was out of town. A log sheet was obtained from the boyfriend but there was no verification of a disability. Member Kemp moved approval of the first three ballots, second by Secretary Miller, for situations involving the return by an authorized returner or precinct official error. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Carter called the vote. Motion carried unanimously. Member Kemp moved rejection of the fourth ballot which was returned by an unauthorized returner, second by Member Bryan. After discussion and consideration of the provisions of Numbered Memo 2020-23, 08 NCAC 18.0102, and NC Gen. Stat. §163-226.3, Chair Carter called the vote. Members Kemp and Bryan voted aye; Chair Carter, Secretary Miller and Member Hunter voted no. Motion to reject the ballot failed due to lack of a majority. Chair Carter moved approval of the Application, second by Member Hunter. Chair Carter said the regulation neither requires the Board to invalidate the ballot in these circumstances, nor does it say we should invalidate it. After debate, Secretary Miller called the question. Board Meeting 11/7/2022 Page | 11 [Member Hunter asked the Chair to hold the vote while she took a phone call. The Chair agreed. Member Hunter left the meeting at 8:05 p.m. and returned at 8:07 p.m.] Chair Carter asked the Director to flag this ballot in case of a challenge, and called the vote. Chair Carter, Secretary Miller and Member Hunter voted aye; Members Bryan and Kemp voted no. Motion carried by majority. Chair Carter returned to the ballot previously held for checking on the witness signatures that appear similar. Ms. Pugh reported that the elderly disabled voter said he did not recall; she was unable to reach the witnesses to verify their signatures. Secretary Miller moved approval of the Application, second by Member Hunter. The Board discussion indicated disagreement whether the signatures appear identical or similar. Chair Carter reviewed Numbered Memo 2021-07, which requires that the signatures appear identical. After reviewing the signatures, Chair Carter called the vote. Chair Carter, Secretary Miller and Member Hunter voted aye; Members Bryan and Kemp voted no. Motion carried by majority vote. Chair Carter moved that Director Hunter-Havens transmit all available information regarding this Container-Return Envelope to the SBE Investigation Division for investigation of the witnesses’ signatures, second by Member Kemp. Hearing no discussion, Chair Carter called the vote. Chair Carter and Members Kemp and Bryan voted aye; Member Hunter and Secretary Miller voted no. Motion carried by majority vote. Secretary Miller moved that, since the total number of absentee-by-mail ballots approved by this meeting is double what was considered in the previous meetings, the Board spot check 10 percent of the total, or 140, in two teams, in recognition of the late hour on the eve of Election Day and the lack of errors found in the previous absentee meetings, second by Chair Carter. Member Bryan objected and said 10 percent is not an adequate sample. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Carter called the vote. Secretary Miller and Member Hunter voted aye; Chair Carter, Members Bryan and Kemp voted no. Motion failed for lack of a majority. Chair Carter moved the Board spot check 20 percent of the total of 1,387, or 278, second by Member Bryan. Hearing no discussion, Chair Carter called the vote. Chair Carter, Secretary Miller, Members Bryan and Hunter voted aye; Member Kemp voted no. Motion carried by majority. Board review began at 8:25 p.m. The Board selected precincts H02 (3), W27 (40), W21 (40), M07 (66), H11 (28) W30 (39), and M06 (29), for a total of 281 approved ballots. Review concluded at 8:55 p.m. and Chair Carter called the meeting back to order. Chair Carter reported that 51,850 ballots were cast during One Stop Early Voting which concluded on Saturday, November 5. He moved acceptance of 51,847 Applications for absentee ballots that were processed at One Stop, second by Member Hunter. Member Kemp asked for an overview of the three Applications which the Board is challenging. Board Meeting 11/7/2022 Page | 12 On Election Day, the Board will review and act on the following challenges: • One Stop official selected wrong voter, giving husband’s ballot to wife who discovered the error upon returning home and realizing she had voted the wrong ballot. Wife returned and voted provisionally. • Husband returned disabled wife’s absentee ballot to a One Stop site. The Envelope was not sealed and was not completed as required. Official instructed husband to insert the ballot in the DS200. • Father and son, senior and junior, have same name. Son appeared to have voted twice, which initiated investigation. Father presented to vote and was given son’s ballot. Son attempted to register in Durham County, which cancelled out his registration in New Hanover County. Upon investigation, the father’s registration was in removed status after being inactive in two consecutive federal elections. Therefore, the son’s name is the only one to appear when the precinct official searched for the voter. Provided the father verifies that he has not moved out of the county, he would have been eligible to vote. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Carter called the vote to approve 51,847 Applications for absentee ballots that were processed at One Stop sites. Motion carried unanimously. The Board members signed the One Stop Absentee Ballot Certification. 4. CLOSED SESSION Chair Carter said that something has come up and called for a closed session to plan, conduct or hear reports concerning alleged criminal misconduct, second by Secretary Miller. Motion carried unanimously. All in attendance, except Director Hunter-Havens and Administrative Elections Technician Joan Geiszler-Ludlum, were excused from the closed session, which began at 9:03 p.m. The closed session concluded at 9:19 p.m. and the Board returned to open session. a. Review of Absentee Ballot Applications continued Chair Carter moved to authorize the staff to take the preparatory steps of opening the approved Envelopes, removing the ballots, and scanning them, except the 3 ballots deferred to the Election Day meeting and the UOCAVA ballots that have not yet been reviewed, second by Member Bryan. Motion carried unanimously. [Secretary Miller stepped out of the meeting at 9:20 p.m. and returned at 9:23 p.m.] At 9:22 p.m., two teams of Board Members began the review of the duplicated UOCAVA ballots. Board Meeting 11/7/2022 Page | 13 At 9:51 p.m., Chair Carter asked the staff to pause their work and called the meeting to order to address a duplicated UOCAVA ballot requiring Board action. The ballot as transmitted to the Board of Elections is sliced at the top of page 2 so that the name of one of the Board of Education candidates is cut off, but the bubble is filled in. The question is whether that bubble should be counted as a vote for that candidate, Dorian Cromartie. After review and discussion, Chair Carter moved to count this as a vote for Dorian Cromartie, based on voter intent, second by Member Bryan. Hearing no discussion, Chair Carter called the vote. Motion carried unanimously. Staff resumed preparatory work. At 10:20 p.m., Chair Carter asked the staff to pause their work and called the meeting to order to consider 2 ballots requiring Board action. Member Hunter said there are two ballots with a section missing at a fold, perhaps torn while opening. It is possible to see that the voter selected one of the candidates, Chad Hogsden, in the District Court seat 4 contest; an undervote in the US Senate contest; and an undervote in the Soil and Water Supervisor contest. Chair Carter so moved, second by Secretary Miller. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Carter called the vote. Motion carried unanimously. Chair Carter said there is another ballot that the voter returned in an Envelope that bears a different CIV number. Director Hunter-Havens said that two members of the same household requested an absentee ballot. The other member voted in person, thus spoiling that voter’s absentee ballot. The other voter voted the wrong ballot style and returned it in the other voter’s return envelope. The Director has not spoken with the voter. Chair Carter moved to hold the ballot and have staff contact the voter, second by Member Kemp. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Carter called the vote. Chair Carter and Member Kemp voted aye; Secretary Miller, Members Hunter and Bryan voted no. Motion failed for lack of a majority. Chair Carter called for any other motion. Secretary Miller move approval of the ballot as submitted, second by Member Hunter. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Carter called the vote. Secretary Miller, Members Hunter, Kemp and Bryan voted aye; Chair Carter voted no. Motion carried by majority. Staff resumed preparatory work. At 11:13 p.m., the Board reviewed the preliminary reconciliation of the completed preparatory work. Chair Carter confirmed with the Director that the report will need to be revised before the Board signs it. Chair Carter said Numbered Memo 2020-25 says that absentee request data is no longer confidential when the ballot is returned to the county board of elections office, citing the supporting statutes and Administrative Code. Names of those absentee voters may be read aloud in Board meetings. Board Meeting 11/7/2022 Page | 14 5. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no discussion, Chair Carter moved that the meeting be adjourned at 11:15 p.m., second by Member Bryan. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Carter called the vote. Motion carried unanimously. The next Board meeting is scheduled to be held on November 8, 2022, at 2:00 p.m., at the Board of Elections office, Long Leaf Room, 1241A Military Cutoff Road, Wilmington, NC. APPROVED BY: RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: _______________________________ _____________________________ DERRICK R. MILLER RAE HUNTER-HAVENS SECRETARY ELECTIONS DIRECTOR Board Minutes – 5/27/2022 Page | 1 SPECIAL MEETING New Hanover County Board of Elections May 27, 2022 11:00 A.M. ATTENDANCE Members: Oliver Carter III, Chairman Derrick R. Miller, Secretary Russ Bryan, Member Lyana G. Hunter, Member [joined virtually at noon, in person at 12:13 p.m.] Bruce Kemp, Member Staff: Rae Hunter-Havens, Elections Director Carolina Dawkins, Deputy Elections Director Jenna Dahlgren, Elections Logistics Specialist Joan Geiszler-Ludlum, Administrative Elections Technician Visitors: Lisa Wurtzbacher, Assistant County Manager Public Attendees: Jennah Bosch; Matthew Emborsky, NHC GOP; Shaundra Y. Scott, Buddy Norton, unreadable name, NC Democratic Party; Tony Barney, Madene Barney; Clarice Rehu, Sheila Fellerath, LWV Lower Cape Fear; Lee Rodio; Ben Schactman, WHQR; Zach Solon, WECT Virtual Attendees: Alex; Tyler Daye; Richard Poole; Preston Lennon; Sydney Hoover; Lyana Hunter (joined at 12:00 p.m.) 1. MEETING OPENING a. Call to Order 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. Chair Carter called the meeting to order at 11:03 a.m. b. Preliminary Announcements Board Minutes – 5/27/2022 Page | 2 Chair Carter reminded the audience to silence their cell phones and that the meeting is being recorded and livestreamed on the internet c. Pledge of Allegiance Chair Carter invited all in attendance to rise and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. d. Approval of Agenda Member Kemp moved that the agenda be approved as submitted, second by Secretary Miller. Hearing no discussion, Chair Carter called the vote. Motion carried unanimously. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT AND QUESTION PERIOD Chair Carter called upon the public in-person attendees for their comments or questions, limited to two minutes each. The Chair recognized Matt Emborsky. Mr. Emborsky first requested copies of the poll tapes from the DS850 or, if these were not printed, for a citation of the law or statute that makes that impossible. Second, Mr. Emborsky shared that he has reviewed the precinct and one-stop sites chosen for the sample hand-eye count over the last 10 or so elections. He has noticed that the category of absentee-by-mail ballots has never been selected. He believes this is statistically improbable and that it results in a large number of ballots never being reviewed by a human being. Seeing and hearing no other public attendees wishing to comment, Chair Carter closed the Public Comment period. 3. NEW BUSINESS a. Absentee Ballot Challenge Hearing Director Hunter-Havens explained that in certain instances it is the duty of the Board or the Chair to initiate a Voter Challenger to a ballot that was improperly cast. In this primary election, one voter forgot that he had recently registered through the DMV. He completed the same day-registration process at an early voting site, and in the process of re-registering, he attempted to change his party affiliation. The Director explained further that a voter cannot change their party affiliation through same-day registration. However, this voter did exactly that and he was improperly given a ballot for the party he attempted to join. However, since he was prohibited from changing his affiliation through same-day registration, he actually was not authorized to vote a ballot for that party. Board Minutes – 5/27/2022 Page | 3 Director Hunter-Havens reported that she has spoken to the voter and that the voter is not interested in opposing the Voter Challenge; his only interest is that his party affiliation be updated going forward. Based on these facts, Chair Carter called for the voter, Mr. Bobby Gene Hayes, to appear. Mr. Hayes did not appear. Member Kemp moved to allow the Voter Challenge, second by Secretary Miller. There was brief discussion, to the effect that (i) Mr. Hayes did not intend to cast an improper ballot and that (ii) allowing the Voter Challenge would permit the staff to remove the cast vote from voter history and the vote totals. Chair Carter called for a vote on the motion to allow the Challenge, and the motion carried unanimously. b. Canvass of 2022 Primary Election Chair Carter described the Final Canvass as a process by which the Board reviews all of the tallies of votes that have been calculated up to this day, resolve any final questions, and then vote to approve the final results. He called on Director Hunter-Havens to guide the Board through the process. i. Passing Upon Remaining Ballots Director Hunter-Havens explained that the Board’s next task is to pass upon four absentee-by-mail ballots that the Board previously tabled for further consideration. After that, the Board should decide whether to reconsider one provisional ballot that it disallowed yesterday. The first of the four that had been tabled was the ballot that arrived in the priority shipping container. The State Board advised that this ballot could be allowed because there was tracking information provided with the shipping container. The Director has not received guidance yet on the other three that the Board left on the table. In addition, the Board should consider revisiting one provisional ballot that it disallowed yesterday. The situation here is that the voter registered via a provisional application in a prior election. He did not provide certain data on the provisional application. When a person who registers by mail omits this certain information, they are flagged as “ID required” in the registration system. If and when they appear to vote in a subsequent election, the election officials request additional verification from them. Yesterday, based in part on guidance from the State Board, the Board did not approve the voter’s provisional ballot. However, after considering the matter further, the State Board reversed its guidance and suggests that the additional verification requirements apply to voters who register by mail, not those who register via a provisional ballot in a prior election. Member Kemp moved to approve the Application and allow the ballot; seconded by Secretary Miller. The Board discussed the question extensively. Finally, Chair Carter Board Minutes – 5/27/2022 Page | 4 called the vote. Secretary Miller voted aye; Chair Carter, Members Bryan and Kemp voted nay. Motion failed for lack of a majority. The Director then informed the Board that she had just received additional guidance from the State Board regarding the other three remaining absentee-by-mail ballots. The State Board Legal Team believes that these three Envelopes lack valid postmarks and therefore should not be accepted. Chair Carter moved to disallow the three ballots, seconded by Member Kemp. Following protracted discussion, Chair Carter called the vote. Chair Carter, Members Bryan and Kemp vote aye; Secretary Miller voted no. Motion carried by majority vote. Next the Board formally acted on the ballot that arrived in the priority mail envelope. Member Kemp moved to disallow the ballot, seconded by Chair Carter. Following discussion, Member Kemp voted aye; Chair Carter, Secretary Miller, and Member Bryan voted no. Motion failed for lack of a majority. Member Kemp moved that the ballot be accepted, seconded by Secretary Miller. Following brief discussion, Chair Carter, Secretary Miller, and Member Bryan voted aye; Member Kemp voted no. Motion carried by majority vote. The Director then scanned the ballot that the Board had approved. ii. Final Canvass Director Hunter-Havens notified the Board that she was ready to prepare the final paperwork for the Board to sign in order to approve the results and certify the election. Chair Carter moved to authorize the Director to prepare the appropriate documentation, seconded by Member Bryan. Motion carried unanimously. Director Hunter-Haves recognized Deputy Director Dawkins to present the Reconciliation Report. The Deputy Director provided the Board with a summary of the written Reconciliation Report, paying special attention to a small handful of precincts and early voting sites that did not reconcile, including H08, H12, H13, and W30 on Election Day; one day at the Carolina Beach site; and two days at the Senior Resource Center site during the early voting period. For each site that did not reconcile, the Deputy Director presented a clear explanation of the reason why the numbers did not match exactly. After the review was complete, the Board members complimented the Deputy Director’s attention to detail. Secretary Miller called the report and the process “confidence- inspiring”. Member Kemp noted that on election night he had observed the process of finalizing and transmitting the unofficial results to the State Board. He stated that the level of detail and degree of double-checking that was performed will make it very easy for him to vouch for the integrity of the process when speaking with groups that might be inclined to question the part of the process that takes place in the secure space in the back office. Board Minutes – 5/27/2022 Page | 5 The Director presented the Board with the final versions of the Final Canvass documents, which the Board signed. 4. GENERAL DISCUSSION Chair Carter moved to the next item on the agenda, General Discussion. He noted that the Board’s next Regular Meeting is scheduled for June 14 but that the Board might need to call a Special Meeting if a recount is requested in the Democratic School Board contest. Chair Carter then summarized the Director’s prior explanation on how and when an unsuccessful candidate may request a recount. In this case, Mr. Beaulieu has until 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 31, to request a recount. Director Hunter-Havens confirmed that she would expect to complete the recount in one day. The Board discussed the quorum requirements for the recount and for the adjudication of any questions of voter intent. The recount can commence with three Board Members present and can continue with only two Board Members present so long as one Board Member is a member of each political party. Questions of voter intent must be determined by three or more Board Members, including one member of each party. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further discussion, Chair Carter called for a motion to adjourn. Secretary Miller moved that the meeting adjourn at 12:43 p.m., second by Member Bryan. Motion carried unanimously. The next Board meeting is scheduled to be held on June 14, 2022, at 5:15 p.m., in the Board of Elections office, Longleaf Room, 1241A Military Cutoff Road, Wilmington, NC. APPROVED BY: RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: _______________________________ _____________________________ DERRICK R. MILLER RAE HUNTER-HAVENS SECRETARY ELECTIONS DIRECTOR Board Meeting 05/26/2022 Page | 1 SPECIAL MEETING New Hanover County Board of Elections May 26, 2022 2:00 P.M. ATTENDANCE Members: Oliver Carter III, Chair Derrick R. Miller, Secretary Lyana G. Hunter, Member [arrived at 2:18 p.m.] Russ C. Bryan, 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: Lisa Wurtzbacher, Assistant County Manager; Kemp Burpeau, Deputy County Attorney; Jennifer Sparks, Luke Sparks, PrintElect Public Attendees: Jennah Bosch, candidate; Beth Frey, Julius Rothlein, Susan Kreamer, Matthew Emborsky, NHC GOP; Jacob Adams; Ellen Jo Kraemer; Jill Hopman, Susanne Werner, Richard Poole, NHCDP; Lee Rodio Observers – Sample Audit Count: Ellen Jo Kraemer; Beth Frey, Matthew Emborsky, Susan Kreamer, Francine Sulak, NHC GOP Virtual Attendees: Patrick; Tyler Daye; Jane Saunders; Sarah Vitt; Jessica O’Neill; Paul 1. MEETING OPENING a. Call to Order Chair Carter called the meeting to order at 2:02 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. Chair Carter said Member Hunter is delayed and will arrive as soon as she can. b. Preliminary Announcements Board Meeting 05/26/2022 Page | 2 Chair Carter reminded the audience to silence their cell phones and that the meeting is being recorded and livestreamed over the internet. c. Pledge of Allegiance Chair Carter invited the audience to rise and called on Secretary Miller to lead the Pledge of Allegiance. d. Approval of Agenda Member Kemp moved the approval of the agenda as submitted, second by Secretary Miller. Motion carried unanimously. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT AND QUESTION PERIOD Chair Carter called upon the public in-person attendees for their comments or questions, limited to two minutes each with a total maximum time of ten minutes. He reminded participants not to interrupt a speaker, to direct their comments to this meeting’s agenda, and to yield the floor to Board members and staff. Matthew Emborsky said the public is able to view the posted DS200 results tapes which are posted at each precinct and take pictures of them. He asked when the results tapes for the weekly absentee meetings and the One Stop sites will be available for public view and photographing. Director Hunter-Havens said documents of that nature are available through a public records request after the final canvass which is the work priority until then. The results tapes will be redacted for machine security. She will respond to a public records request in the order received and as time allows. Seeing and hearing no other public attendees wishing to comment, Chair Carter closed the Public Comment period. 3. NEW BUSINESS a. Sample Audit Count Chair Carter said the next item is the sample audit count of ballots cast in precincts FP03 and M03. He called on Director Hunter-Havens to review the sample audit procedures. The Director said all counties are required by statute to complete a sample audit count after Election Day and before the final canvass as part of the post-election auditing process. The purpose of the audit is to compare the machine counts with a hand-eye count to ensure that the voting equipment accurately reads the voter’s ballot choices. The State Board of Elections (SBE) randomly selects two voting sites or methods of voting, which may include one or more full precincts, a full count of absentee-by-mail ballots, or a full count of one or more One Stop sites. SBE also randomly selects one Board Meeting 05/26/2022 Page | 3 state-wide ballot item for the sample audit. The ballot item for this sample audit count is the US Senate contest. The randomly selected precincts for this county are FP03 and M03. A bipartisan team of election officials will hand-count the ballots in one of the precincts, which are then compared to the machine-tabulated results. Any variances are documented and reported to the State Board. Each bipartisan team includes 2 talleyers, 1 caller, and 1 observer. Based on previous experience, she expects there will be a small variation between the hand-eye count and the machine tapes, usually due to a voter marking error or a machine reading error. Deputy Director Caroline Dawkins has the two teams assembled in the Paynter Room. As soon as the Board authorizes them to proceed, the sample audit count will begin. Member Kemp moved to proceed with the sample audit count of FP03 and M03 pursuant to the statutes and SBE guidance, second by Secretary Miller. Hearing no discussion, Chair Carter called the vote. Motion carried unanimously. Director Hunter-Havens said the public is welcome to observe the sample audit count, and several people from the audience left the meeting. b. Review of Provisional Ballot Applications Chair Carter moved to the next items on the agenda and suggested the Board review and act on the provisional ballot Applications1, then the supplemental absentee-by-mail Applications, and then proceed to opening and scanning the approved ballots for tabulation. Director Hunter-Havens said the ballots will be scanned into different reporting groups as required. She said there are 203 provisional ballots that she recommends for approval based on investigation, 170 recommended for disapproval, and 9 pending for Board review and decision. The most frequent reasons for voting provisionally are the voter going to a polling site other than their assigned precinct on Election Day or the voter has an unreported move. Director Hunter-Havens reviewed the 9 pending provisional ballot circumstances with her recommendation for Board action: • Voter (Bryan) presented with her sister to vote but was unable, after several promptings, to give a positive indication that she wanted her sister’s assistance in casting her ballot. The sister completed the provisional Application, signed it for her, and marked the ballot for her. 1 A voter receives a provisional ballot when a question arises about the voter’s qualification to vote; the voter’s eligibility to vote in that election; or the voter’s eligibility to vote a specific ballot style. The voter completes an Application to vote the provisional ballot, marks the ballot, and seals it in a provisional ballot envelope with the Application attached on the front. Election officials research the voter’s eligibility and make a recommendation to the county Board of Elections, which makes the final determination as to whether to count the ballot in whole, in part, or not at all. Board Meeting 05/26/2022 Page | 4 [Member Hunter arrived.] After discussion, Member Kemp moved to reject the provisional ballot, second by Secretary Miller. Chair Carter said he was not comfortable with counting this ballot without a clear, affirmative request for assistance. Motion carried unanimously and the provisional ballot was disapproved. • A husband and wife (Heath) were voting curbside at Cape Fear North One Stop site. They gave their information to the curbside coordinator who went inside, received their SOSA applications and the ballots, returned to the vehicle and gave them to the voters to sign the SOSAs and complete the ballots. The voters returned the signed SOSAs and ballots in the privacy sleeve. The coordinator went inside and placed both ballots into the DS200. Upon returning to the voters with their “I Voted” stickers, the the coordinator was told by the voters that the ballots were blank. Two blank ballots marked “Provisional” were found in the tabulator. Both voters then completed provisional applications and voted. The Board may decide to reject the provisional ballots because the voters had already cast ballots, or the Board can decide the voters were confused by the process and approve the provisional ballots as the ballots the voters intended to cast. In the latter case, the Board would also authorize staff to manually adjust the undervotes and voter history since the first ballots were blank. After discussion, Member Bryan moved approval of the 2 provisional ballots, second by Member Hunter. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Carter called the vote. Motion carried unanimously. • Voter (Mintz) was unclear on his registration status when he presented to vote on Election Day, and he voted provisionally. He then placed his ballot in the DS200 in error. Precinct officials had marked the ballot with “Provisional” and precinct, as instructed. One ballot so marked was retrieved. Investigation found this voter was currently registered in Buncombe County since 2018. If the Board disapproves the provisional ballot, as is recommended, staff will administratively adjust the vote totals accordingly. Secretary Miller moved to reject the ballot, second by Member Bryan. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Carter called the vote. Motion carried unanimously. • Voter (Barber) came to the Senior Center to vote during One Stop and placed a blank ballot in the DS200. Staff was able to retrieve the ballot by the absentee code and label as “Provisional”. Voter proceeded to vote a provisional ballot based on having already cast a ballot. Approval of the provisional ballot will include manual adjustment to the vote totals. Board Meeting 05/26/2022 Page | 5 After discussion, Member Hunter moved approval of the provisional ballot, second by Member Kemp. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Carter called the vote. Motion carried unanimously. • Voter (Townes) presented to precinct W30 to vote on Election Day. He became confused and inserted his blank ballot into the DS200 in error. Precinct officials located one uncoded blank ballot in this DS200, which is a precinct official error. Voter proceeded to vote provisionally. After discussion, Member Kemp moved approval of the provisional ballot, second by Chair Carter. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Carter called the vote. Motion carried unanimously. • Voter (McLeod) presented to vote on May 9 during One Stop. His record indicated he was registered as a Republican and he proceeded to vote the Republican ballot. He returned on May 10 and voted a Democratic ballot provisionally. Upon investigation, there was a data entry error on a party change request the voter submitted in December 2021 to change his party affiliation from Republican to Unaffiliated. He realized after he voted the first ballot that he should have been eligible to vote the second ballot. At that point, the Director could not retrieve the first ballot with his absentee code on it, and therefore the staff lacked the information to cancel the first ballot selections. Based on his registration record, he was eligible and only able to vote the Republican ballot, and absent staff error in processing his 2021 change of party request, he would have been eligible to vote the Democratic ballot. The Director recommended the Board disapprove the provisional (second) ballot because the voter had already voted the first ballot. Chair Carter asked how we can be certain that the voter cast the first ballot if we can’t find the ballot. The Director said the voter acknowledged casting the first ballot. When he returned the next day, his voting history showed he had already voted, and he could therefore not vote traditionally. Director Hunter-Havens said she believes the voted ballot was likely a pre-printed ballot, where the precinct official would be required to write in the SOSA code, and not a ballot-on-demand ballot which would print the code on the ballot when issued. The Board explored the possibility of tabling this matter until the next day and do additional investigation of the ballots cast on May 9 at that One Stop location and try to retrieve the cast ballot. Member Kemp noted that the Republican ballot will not affect any results, while the Democratic ballot may affect the contest that is currently 3 votes apart. In light of the 2 staff errors, the grace should go to the voter. Member Kemp moved approval of the provisional ballot, second by Chair Carter. Chair Carter considered the scenario where the current close contest ended up a tie. Given that possible scenario, he wanted to exercise caution. The only new information Board Meeting 05/26/2022 Page | 6 identified is the possibility of finding only 1 ballot without a SOSA code, giving us the confidence that this voter’s ballot has been found. An alternative would be to get the voter to put something in writing. The Director said she was unable to find contact information for this voter. Member Miller said he has tried to be consistent in giving the benefit of the doubt to the voter. Here having more information in the context of other ballots yet to be reviewed, we may have more confidence that we are being consistent. He said he is reluctant to have the decision on this case cast doubt on the legitimacy of a close contest result. Member Kemp said the Board has over 300 outstanding ballots to approve. Adding one ballot to the total now is less significant to the final result than adding one tomorrow when we have already seen the outcome of those more than 300 ballots. Member Hunter agreed since the voter did all he could do to correct the error as soon as he could. After discussion, Chair Carter restated the motion on the floor, which is to approve the provisional ballot, and called the vote. Motion carried unanimously. Director Hunter-Havens asked that the Board authorize the staff to cancel the voter’s voter history for May 9 as a voter cannot have two voter history records. Member Kemp so moved, second by Chair Carter. Motion carried unanimously. • Voter (Davis) presented to a One Stop site, then also presented to a precinct on Election Day and insisted she had not voted previously. She was allowed to vote provisionally, given the record of having already voted. Upon investigation, the voter conceded she may have forgotten having voted during One Stop, and did not act with intent to vote twice, she is just forgetful at times. The Director recommended disapproving the provisional ballot. Member Kemp moved disapproval of the provisional ballot application, second by Member Bryan. Hearing no discussion, Chair Carter called the vote. Motion carried unanimously. • Voter (Hunt) voted a provisional ballot on Election Day because she appeared to have already voted. She followed up by email, objecting to having to vote provisionally, prompting investigation. A SOSA application was found linked to her voting record and compared to the provisional Application, showing different signatures. Director Hunter-Havens said it appears that the One Stop official selected the wrong voter, printed the Authorization to Vote (ATV), which the voter signed without reading carefully. Member Hunter asked the Director whether she is recommending disapproval of this provisional Application. The Director said it is a close call, but the general rule is to give the benefit of the doubt to the voter. This one is a close call and for the Board to decide. Chair Carter took note of the voter initiating the objection to voting provisionally, and there is a SOSA application already linked to this voter’s history. Each voter voted a different party ballot. Board Meeting 05/26/2022 Page | 7 Secretary Miller drew the comparison with the similar situation discussed earlier in this meeting, where the Board voted to approve the provisional ballot, recognizing that a poll worker error should not invalidate a voter’s cast ballot. This voter should be given the same benefit of the doubt. Member Kemp asked whether the ballot under consideration is an R ballot or a D ballot. Chair Carter said the One Stop ballot was an R ballot, and the Election Day ballot was a D ballot. Member Kemp moved approval of the provisional ballot Application, second by Member Hunter. Chair Carter called for any further discussion. Member Hunter asked whether approving the provisional ballot will require cancelling the ballot cast at One Stop. Director Hunter-Havens said that ballot has already been counted, and the provisional voter said she did not cast that ballot even though it is linked to her voter registration. Board approval will authorize staff to cancel the first voter history for this voter, so that there is no suggestion that the voter voted twice. In response to a question from Secretary Miller, the Director said she can identify the cast One Stop ballot, but does not know to which voter to link it and the voter may have been eligible to vote. Absent evidence that the voter was not eligible to vote, no action should be taken at this point. This situation requires a challenge to an absentee ballot cast at One Stop, but it is past the deadline to file a challenge and we do not know whose ballot it is and whose vote to challenge. It requires an administrative reason to adjust now. Chair Carter said if there is a recount and the election is protested, the Board may be able to reopen the matter then. The Director said that may require additional guidance from the State Board. Chair Carter said the Board will need to note this situation in the reconciliation of the Republican ballots cast. Chair Carter reviewed the motion on the floor, which is to approve the provisional ballot. The motion does not address the staff making any manual adjustment for the first ballot cast. Director Hunter-Havens said the motion, if adopted, would require staff to correct the voter’s voter history to show she voted provisionally and not as One Stop absentee ballot. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Carter called the vote. Motion carried unanimously. Director Hunter-Havens presented 170 provisional ballot applications which she recommends the Board deny because the voter is not eligible to vote in this county; not eligible to vote in this election; or not eligible to vote the party ballot that they selected. She presented 203 provisional ballot Applications which she recommends the Board approve. She gave an overview of the investigation’s findings. Board Meeting 05/26/2022 Page | 8 After discussion, Member Kemp moved approval of 203 provisional ballot Applications, and disapproval of 170 provisional ballot Applications, second by Secretary Miller. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Carter called the vote. Motion carried unanimously. c. Review of Supplemental Absentee-by-Mail Ballot Applications Chair Carter called on Director Hunter-Havens for her report on the supplemental absentee-by-mail ballots. • The Director presented 1 pending absentee-by-mail Application2 for Board consideration. She said, normally, the name of the voter and absentee code are visible on the face of the Envelope. In this case, the voter cut off the top of the Envelope with this information and taped it closed. Elections Specialist Beth Pugh spoke with the voter, who said on opening the outside envelope, they ripped the return envelope and taped it closed. The return address label confirms the voter’s identity and meets all other requirements. • The Director presented 1 pending absentee-by-mail Application where one witness’s information does not line up in the fields provided and was difficult to read, but all required information is there, and staff were able to verify the address. The ballot was returned by USPS Priority mail on May 17. After the Board reviewed the 2 pending Applications, Member Kemp moved approval of both of them, second by Member Hunter. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Carter called the vote. Motion carried unanimously. The Board began review of the absentee-by-mail Applications recommended for approval at 3:45 p.m. Member Bryan said on this Application the return log sheet does not say how the returner is related to the voter, but it is signed to indicate the returner verified they were eligible to return the ballot. The name was written in, perhaps by a member of the staff? Member Bryan said the spouse’s ballot was returned at the same time by the same person. While reviewing the pending Application that had previously been discussed and approved, flagged by a purple sticky, Member Kemp noted that the stamp was printed May 17, but it is postmarked May 19. The Board held the Application for further discussion. 2 When a voter chooses to submit an absentee ballot by mail or personal delivery, the voter places the completed ballot into a special envelope called a “Container Return Envelope”. On the outside of the Envelope is a pre-printed form called an “Absentee Ballot Application”. The voter is required to complete this Application and have it signed by two witnesses or have it notarized. In almost all cases, the Board must approve the Application before the Envelope is opened and the ballot removed. The terms “Absentee Ballot Application” and “Container-Return Envelope” are often used interchangeably in casual conversation. In these minutes, “Envelope” will generally refer to the physical envelope, while “Application” will generally refer to the form printed on the outside of the Envelope. Board Meeting 05/26/2022 Page | 9 The Board concluded its review of the absentee-by-mail Applications at 4:32 p.m. Chair Carter called the Board’s attention to 4 Envelopes where there is still a question as to whether they have an acceptable postmark as evidence of timely mailing. Secretary Miller said the Board was willing to approve 1 based on tracking, then why not accept the other 3? After debating what constitutes an acceptable postmark and qualifying tracking information, Member Hunter moved approval of all 4 pending ballots with postmark questions, second by Secretary Miller. After additional discussion, the Board agreed to review 37 Applications that the Director has recommended for disapproval to be sure none are similar to the 4 under discussion. Director Hunter-Havens reported 9 were received after the May 20 deadline, 23 have no postmark, and 5 had other deficiencies with no time to cure the deficiency and were advised to vote on Election Day. Chair Carter said, of the 23 recommended for disapproval, none have a printed stamp with a date prior to Election Day, as do these 4 under consideration. Member Bryan asked the Director to obtain guidance from the State Board to clarify what is an acceptable postmark because the Board will see more of these questions. Member Kemp said the motion, which is currently on the floor, and he now thinks was premature, was based on looking up a tracking record for the return Envelope to determine when it was delivered to the post office. He said he wanted to withdraw that motion, because it was based on the intent to count all 4 if the Board agreed to accept 1. Member Hunter, who made the motion, said her motion was not premised on the tracking history suggestion. Chair Carter said the motion on the floor is to accept the 4 absentee ballot Applications in question, and the motion was seconded. None of them have what is commonly considered a postmark, but all of them have some other indication of being mailed before the deadline. He called for the vote. Secretary Miller and Member Hunter voted aye; Chair Carter and Members Bryan and Kemp voted no. Motion failed for lack of a majority. Member Bryan moved acceptance of the ballot that tracking shows was received on May 17, second by Member Kemp. Chair Carter called for discussion of the motion. Secretary Miller said he would support the motion, but hewants to apply the same standard to all 4 Applications under consideration. Otherwise, this appears to apply an ad hoc standard. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Carter called the vote. Secretary Miller and Members Bryan, Hunter, and Kemp voted aye; Chair Carter voted no. Motion carried by majority. Secretary Miller moved to approve the remaining 3 Applications, second by Member Hunter. In discussion, Member Bryan asked the Director if it would be possible for staff Board Meeting 05/26/2022 Page | 10 to research the tracking for these 3 Applications by tomorrow’s meeting. Director Hunter-Havens said that is possible. Member Bryan moved to lay on the table the main motion, second by Chair Carter. Chair Carter called the vote on the motion to table the main motion. Secretary Miller asked for clarification on when the motion would be taken up again. Director Hunter-Havens said she would try to get the information before this meeting adjourns. Chair Carter clarified the motion is to table the main motion until an indefinite time when the requested information and guidance is received. If we do not have the update by the time this meeting adjourns, we can continue it until the next meeting tomorrow. Chair Carter called the vote. Motion carried unanimously. After the vote, Member Kemp asked the Director in include in the tracking research the 1 Application approved on Member Bryan’s motion to approve. After discussion of the propriety of revisiting the earlier decision to approve the Application, member Kemp said if he is going to challenge 3 others, he wants to challenge all 4. Director Hunter-Havens summarized the Board’s action so far. She said she recommended 121 Applications for approval, 3 have been pulled out. Chair Carter asked the Director to nail down the count for a motion to authorize staff to open the approved Envelopes and count the ballots. Chair Carter said the Board would be at ease until the count is clarified. [Member Hunter left the meeting at 5:05 p.m.] Director Hunter-Havens verified the total recommended for approval is 119. Chair Carter moved to authorize the Director to open the approved 119 Envelopes and to scan and tabulate those ballots, second by Member Bryan. Hearing no discussion, Chair Carter called the vote. Motion carried unanimously. Scanning began at 5:10 p.m. [Member Hunter rejoined the meeting virtually at 5:19 p.m.] Chair Carter called the meeting back to order and called on Member Kemp for a motion. Member Kemp moved to reconsider the previous approval of 1 absentee ballot Application with tracking data, approved earlier in the meeting, and add it to the 3 under review pending further guidance from the SBE, second by Member Bryan. Chair Carter called for discussion of the motion. Member Kemp asked whether Member Hunter was still in the meeting virtually. Staff confirmed she was not. Board Meeting 05/26/2022 Page | 11 Secretary Miller said that, while he does not prefer to reconsider the motion, he will agree to do so on the advice of the SBE. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Carter called the vote. Motion to reconsider carried unanimously. Member Kemp moved to defer counting the ballot that was reconsidered, pending SBE guidance on the postmark question, second by Chair Carter, who called for discussion of the motion. After discussion, Chair Carter clarified that the motion defers consideration of the reconsidered ballot until the canvass meeting tomorrow, and does not tie further consideration to receiving further guidance. Even if the Board does not have further SBE guidance, the Board must act on the 4 pending Applications at the canvass meeting. Chair Carter checked that Member Hunter had rejoined the meeting. She asked the Chair to repeat the motion as she is having difficulty with the livestream sound. After repeating the motion, Chair Carter asked for any further discussion of the motion. Hearing none, he called the vote. Motion carried unanimously. [Secretary Miller and Member Bryan left the meeting at 6:02 p.m. Chair Carter verified that Member Hunter is able to remain in the meeting to preserve a quorum.] Scanning completed at 6:52 p.m. Director Hunter-Havens reported that the Board approved 203 Applications as recommended, approved 6 provisional ballots after review, and 1 provisional ballot was incorrectly inserted in the tabulator at the site and was approved on review, so it was deducted since it was tabulated twice, for a total of 208 ballots scanned. In addition, 3 machine-rejected ballots will be duplicated, but the Board can go ahead and adjourn. 4. ADJOURNMENT Chair Carter moved that the meeting be adjourned at 6:52 p.m., second by Member Kemp. Motion carried unanimously. The next Board meeting is scheduled to be held on Friday, May 27, 2022, at 11:00 a.m. to conduct the final canvass, in 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 – 11/9/2021 Page | 1 SPECIAL MEETING New Hanover County Board of Elections November 9, 2021 11:00 A.M. ATTENDANCE Members: Oliver Carter III, Chairman Derrick R. Miller, Secretary Russ Bryan, Member Lyana G. Hunter, Member Bruce Kemp, Member Staff: Rae Hunter-Havens, Executive Director Caroline Dawkins, Deputy Director Joan Geiszler-Ludlum, Administrative Elections Technician Visitors: Sheryl Kelly, Assistant County Manager; Kemp Burpeau, Deputy County Attorney Public Attendees: Matthew Emborsky, Julius Rothlein, NHC GOP; Susanne Werner, NHCDP Virtual Attendees: Tracy 1. MEETING OPENING a. Call to Order 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 and Member Bryan, were present constituting a quorum of the Board. Members Hunter and Kemp are expected shortly. Chair Carter called the meeting to order at 11:02 A.M. b. Preliminary Announcements Chair Carter reminded the audience to silence their cell phones, to comply with the mask mandate, and that the meeting is being recorded and live-streamed on the internet. c. Pledge of Allegiance Board Minutes – 11/9/2021 Page | 2 Chair Carter invited all in attendance to rise and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. d. Approval of Agenda Chair Carter proposed that the agenda be approved with one amendment, to move the Public Comment Period to the end, after New Business. Member Bryan moved approval of the agenda as amended. Secretary Miller seconded the motion. Hearing no discussion, Chair Carter called the vote. Motion carried unanimously. 3. NEW BUSINESS a. Canvass of 2021 Municipal Election Chair Carter recognized Director Hunter-Havens. The Director summarized the Final Canvass procedures that culminate in the authentication of the official results and the signing of the finalized documents. She reminded the Board that it had passed upon the applications for absentee-by-mail ballots at its weekly meetings over the last six weeks. She recalled that the Board had considered and approved provisional ballots at its pre- canvass meetings. The Director mentioned that the staff had conducted a post-election hand-to-eye count for Precincts W26 and W31. [Members Hunter and Kemp arrived at 11:08 a.m.] Director Hunter-Havens recognized Deputy Chair Dawkins to provide more detail regarding the sample hand-to-eye count. Deputy Director Dawkins reported that in Precinct W31, the results of the hand-eye count matched the results of the machine count exactly. In Precinct W26, there were two ballots counted by humans that the machine did not count—one ballot that was marked in an unusual way by the voter and one ballot that contained a write-in. The bipartisan team was able to determine the voter’s intent on each ballot where the machine could not. This explains the discrepancy. Next, the Deputy Director presented the reconciliation of the One-Stop Early Voting Sites and the Election Day polling places. In the week after Election Day, the Board’s staff make sure that (a) the number of votes showing in individuals’ voter histories matches (b) the number of paper ballots cast at every Early Voting site and every Election Day polling place. She distributed a written Reconciliation Report showing that in 27 out of 29 precincts, the numbers matched exactly. For both of the precincts that did not match, the Deputy Director’s Reconciliation Report provided information that explained the discrepancy. In particular, notes taken and reports filed by the Precinct Officials allowed the staff to understand what happened and memorialize that information for the Board. In H02, the facts strongly suggest that one voter checked in, received their ballot, and then left without inserting it into the tabulator. In W15, one voter received their ballot but then asked to take their ballot out to their car and bring it back. When the precinct officials would not allow this, the voter threw down their ballot and stomped out, thereby spoiling the ballot. Board Minutes – 11/9/2021 Page | 3 The Board thanked the Director, Deputy Director, staff, and Precinct Officials for their efforts. Member Kemp expressed his opinion that the election is “reconciled”. In his view, when any discrepancies can be explained, the results are “reconciled. He thought that the Precinct Officials did an outstanding job of documenting the facts surrounding these two discrepancies. Secretary Miller moved to finalize the canvass and to authorize the Director to (i) transmit the results to the State Board of Elections and to (ii) prepare the appropriate certifications for the Board’s signature. Member Bryan seconded the motion. The Chair called for a vote, and the motion passed unanimously. The meeting was at ease while the Director left the room to prepare the appropriate documents for the Board to sign. After ten minutes or so, Director Hunter-Havens returned with the documents. Member Kemp asked her if there was a Reconciliation Report for the provisional and absentee-by- mail ballots. The Director explained that the staff does not prepare a Reconciliation Report for these two categories of ballots because the Board passes upon them firsthand. The Board then signed the Final Canvass documents and presented them to the Director. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT AND QUESTION PERIOD Next Chair Carter called upon the public in-person attendees for their comments or questions, limited to two minutes each. The Chair recognized Matt Emborsky. Mr. Emborsky first expanded on his public records request from yesterday seeking clarification on an issue related to N.C. Administrative Code Title 8 and the role of Election Observers by asking that the Board also provide a copy of the “cast vote record”. He said he thought this is a document that has been presented to the Board and, if so, he would like to see it in the interest of transparency. Director Hunter-Havens asked Mr. Emborsky to submit the records request in writing and to be as specific as possible so that she can help make sure he gets what he is looking for. Second, Mr. Emborsky opined that a two-minute limit on public comments makes it difficult for the public to provide meaningful, nuanced feedback during the Board’s meetings. He pointed out that some of the topics being considered are very in-depth. Chair Carter explained that at some meetings there have been many people in attendance who have wanted to comment and that the Board had decided to impose the two-minute time limit to make sure its meetings don’t drag on too long. He said that the Board sometimes allows speakers a little bit of additional time on a case-by-case basis. Member Kemp asked whether the Board could review poll tapes. Director Hunter- Havens responded that the Board previously reviewed the tapes for the DS200s that were used at the Early Voting sites. She said that the Board generally does not review the tapes from the DS200s that are used at the Election Day polling places; those are reviewed by the Chief Judge and Judges after the voting has concluded. The Director Board Minutes – 11/9/2021 Page | 4 said that copies of those tapes could be made available since they are public records. Chair Carter asked Member Kemp to submit the request to the Director in writing. The Chair recognized Suzanne Werner of the New Hanover Democratic Party. Ms. Werner thanked the board and the staff for a job well done. She and the Democratic Party are grateful for the long hours and hard work everyone has put in. The Chair recognized Julius Rothlein of the New Hanover County Republican Party. Mr. Rothlein reiterated that the 2-minute time limit on public comments was too short. In his opinion, there should be more of a give-and-take between the Board and the members of the public who attend and wish to speak. The Chair noted that the Board is not legally obligated to hear public comments but that it chooses to do so because it values the public’s input. He said that the Board wants to be accessible and that the general feeling of the Board is that two minutes is usually long enough for a speaker to effectively make one or two points. Seeing and hearing no other public attendees wishing to comment, Chair Carter closed the Public Comment period. 4. GENERAL DISCUSSION Chair Carter moved to the next item on the agenda, General Discussion. Director Hunter- Havens mentioned that she had recently received the new jurisdictional lines from the State Board. She will be working in the coming weeks to update voters’ profiles in order to make sure they’re assigned to the correct legislative districts. Chair Carter noted that the Board’s next Regular Meeting is scheduled for December 14 at 5:15 p.m. He asked about the schedule in January and whether the weekly absentee review meetings would begin in late January. The Director confirmed that the primary election is scheduled for early March which could cause the first absentee review meeting to fall in late January. Director Hunter-Havens mentioned that the staff is looking for new polling places for precincts W18 and W28. The Chair and the Director noted that recruiting Precinct Officials is another priority for the coming weeks. A virtual attendee asked a question via chat: “Does the board have a metric of your success such as confidence of the public in elections?” Chair Carter observed that there were no major complaints and no Election Protests or other quasi-judicial proceedings brought before the Board. Secretary Miller mentioned that the results of the Reconciliation Reports provide one metric of success—out of 24,000 ballots cast, we only lost one, and we know where and when it was lost. Mr. Kemp asked for a list of the proposed meeting dates for 2022. The Director agreed to add that matter to the agenda for the Board’s Regular Meeting in December and to distribute a proposed list of meeting dates. The Board has less flexibility with the Board Minutes – 11/9/2021 Page | 5 absentee ballot review meetings since the days and times of those are set by statute. The Board decided to revisit the matter at its December meeting. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further discussion, Chair Carter called for a motion to adjourn. Member Hunter moved that the meeting adjourn at 11:55 a.m., second by Member Kemp. Motion carried unanimously. The next Board meeting is scheduled to be held on December 14, 2021, at 5:15 p.m., in 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 Regular Meeting New Hanover County Board of Elections June 13, 2023 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 June 13, 2023 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 FY22-23 11th Period (May) • Operating Expenses expended through FY22-23 11th Period (May) • Grand Total expended through FY22-23 11th Period (May) 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 546 voters from the voter registration rolls in May 2023, consistent with N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-82.14. • Processed 946 new registration forms, 341 duplicate registration forms, and 639 registration updates in May 2023. c. Administrative Updates • Precinct Consolidation – The Executive Director of the NC State Board of Elections approved the board’s request to consolidate precincts W13 and W24 into precinct W34 and precincts W28 and W32 into precinct W35. We have completed all required changes in SEIMS and will send notices to active voters in the two precincts (W13 and W32) whose polling place has changed. In addition, we will send a one-page flyer to active voters in all four precincts in early September to inform all residents of their new precinct code and current polling place. We will also share information about the precinct consolidations on our website and via social media posts. • 2023 Elections Training Conference – The State Board will conduct the annual summer training conference on August 14th and 15th at the Embassy Suites Hotel in Concord, NC. Per N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-82.24, every member of a county board of elections is required to attend one training conducted by the State Board during their first six months after the member’s initial appointment and at least once again during the first two years of the member’s service. • Proposed Rules on Voter Photo ID – The NC State Board of Elections has opened a public comment period on proposed rules to implement photo ID requirements for in-person and absentee-by-mail voting. The public may comment on the proposed rules using an online portal or via email at rulemaking.sboe@ncsbe.gov. The public comment period is Item # 2 Item # 3 open through June 23rd. The State Board will hold a virtual public hearing on June 19, 2023 at 11:00 am. I have included links to the proposed rules below for your review. Rule 08 NCAC 17 .0101 (Verification of Photo Identification During In-Person Voting) Rule 08 NCAC 17 .0109 (Photo Identification for Absentee-By-Mail Ballots) Document/s Included: Financial Year-To-Date Budget Report 11th Period (May); NVRA Report from 2023; NVRA Visualizations Report; NVRA Report Definitions Board Action Required: Discuss as necessary NEW HANOVER COUNTY - LIVE YEAR-TO-DATE BUDGET REPORT Report generated: 06/09/2023 15:24User: rhavensProgram ID: glytdbud Page 1 FOR 2023 11 ACCOUNTS FOR: ORIGINAL TRANFRS/ REVISED AVAILABLE PCT110 GENERAL FUND APPROP ADJSTMTS BUDGET YTD EXPENDED ENCUMBRANCES BUDGET USED 16 BOARD OF ELECTIONS 60 SALARIES & BENEFITS 11016100 610000 SALARIES AND WA 460,334 0 460,334 438,960.27 .00 21,373.73 95.4% 11016100 611500 CASUAL PART TIM 341,867 0 341,867 267,222.45 .00 74,644.55 78.2% 11016100 611600 OVERTIME PAY (O 8,227 0 8,227 8,396.97 .00 -169.97 102.1% 11016100 621000 SOCIAL SECURITY 34,809 0 34,809 38,833.50 .00 -4,024.50 111.6% 11016100 622000 RETIREMENT-LOCA 55,884 0 55,884 53,221.66 .00 2,662.34 95.2% 11016100 623500 GENERAL 401-K M 11,509 0 11,509 10,960.28 .00 548.72 95.2% 11016100 625000 MEDICAL INSURAN 76,216 0 76,216 63,431.04 .00 12,784.96 83.2% 11016100 626000 LONG TERM DISAB 1,243 0 1,243 731.03 .00 511.97 58.8% TOTAL SALARIES & BENEFITS 990,089 0 990,089 881,757.20 .00 108,331.80 89.1% 70 OPERATING EXPENSES 11016100 700000 CONTR SERVS 191,057 0 191,057 225,191.30 .00 -34,134.30 117.9% 11016100 700330 RENT 1,750 0 1,750 125.00 .00 1,625.00 7.1% 11016100 700350 ADVERTISING COS 2,025 0 2,025 1,392.60 .00 632.40 68.8% 11016100 700365 CELLULAR EXPENS 0 0 0 12,728.49 .00 -12,728.49 100.0% 11016100 700370 POSTAGE EXPENSE 38,980 0 38,980 31,957.63 .00 7,022.37 82.0% 11016100 700430 M&R-EQUIPMENT 50,855 0 50,855 53,397.75 .00 -2,542.75 105.0% 11016100 700500 PRINTING 54,795 0 54,795 60,898.71 .00 -6,103.71 111.1% 11016100 700512 PRINTER-COPIER 7,000 0 7,000 8,288.53 .00 -1,288.53 118.4% 11016100 700520 SUPPLIES 84,495 0 84,495 33,273.49 .00 51,221.51 39.4% 11016100 700700 DUES & SUBSCRIP 470 0 470 129.99 .00 340.01 27.7% 11016100 700825 EMPLOYEE REIMBU 250 0 250 1,570.07 .00 -1,320.07 628.0% 11016100 700905 TRAINING & TRAV 6,500 0 6,500 1,839.56 .00 4,660.44 28.3% 11016100 701050 INSURANCE&BONDS 66,326 -41,890 24,436 23,435.48 .00 1,000.52 95.9% TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 504,503 -41,890 462,613 454,228.60 .00 8,384.40 98.2% TOTAL BOARD OF ELECTIONS 1,494,592 -41,890 1,452,702 1,335,985.80 .00 116,716.20 92.0% TOTAL GENERAL FUND 1,494,592 -41,890 1,452,702 1,335,985.80 .00 116,716.20 92.0% TOTAL EXPENSES 1,494,592 -41,890 1,452,702 1,335,985.80 .00 116,716.20 NEW HANOVER COUNTY - LIVE YEAR-TO-DATE BUDGET REPORT Report generated: 06/09/2023 15:24User: rhavensProgram ID: glytdbud Page 2 FOR 2023 11 ORIGINAL TRANFRS/ REVISED AVAILABLE PCT APPROP ADJSTMTS BUDGET YTD EXPENDED ENCUMBRANCES BUDGET USED GRAND TOTAL 1,494,592 -41,890 1,452,702 1,335,985.80 .00 116,716.20 92.0% ** END OF REPORT - Generated by RAE HUNTER-HAVENS ** NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS NVRA REPORT Reporting Period:-5/1/2023 5/31/2023 Totals Active 148,973 Inactive 26,526 Total Registration 175,499 REPORTING PERIOD Registrations Approved 834 Total Registrations Removed 546 Inactive Registrations Removed 117 New Registrations 00 - No Application Source 7 01 - Public Assistance 15 02 - Disability 1 03 - Other (ESC) 0 04 - Armed Forces 0 05 - DMV 851 06 - Mail-in 8 07 - In-person 3 08 - Library & High School 0 09 - Spanish Language Application 0 10 - Online Registration 33 17 - Registration Drives 28 21 - Medicaid Renewal 0 96 - Temporary FWAB Registrant 0 97 - Temporary FPCA Registrant 0 946 Duplicates 00 - No Application Source 8 01 - Public Assistance 7 02 - Disability 2 03 - Other (ESC) 0 04 - Armed Forces 0 05 - DMV 240 06 - Mail-in 10 07 - In-person 0 08 - Library & High School 0 09 - Spanish Language Application 0 10 - Online Registration 17 17 - Registration Drives 2 21 - Medicaid Renewal 1 95 - Voter Return of NCOA 9 96 - Temporary FWAB Registrant 0 97 - Temporary FPCA Registrant 0 98 - Voter Change On Confirmation 29 vtr_nvra_stat.rpt Page 1 of 5Jun 08, 2023 2:04 pm NVRA REPORTNEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS 99 - Voter Change On Verification 16 341 vtr_nvra_stat.rpt Page 2 of 5Jun 08, 2023 2:04 pm NVRA REPORTNEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS Changes of Information 00 - No Application Source 27 01 - Public Assistance 12 02 - Disability 1 03 - Other (ESC) 0 04 - Armed Forces 0 05 - DMV 505 06 - Mail-in 6 07 - In-person 15 08 - Library & High School 0 09 - Spanish Language Application 0 10 - Online Registration 36 17 - Registration Drives 9 21 - Medicaid Renewal 1 95 - Voter Return of NCOA 7 96 - Temporary FWAB Registrant 0 97 - Temporary FPCA Registrant 0 98 - Voter Change On Confirmation 11 99 - Voter Change On Verification 9 639 Verifications # of 1st & 2nd verification mailings sent 1,426 # of 1st NCOA mailings sent 0 # of 1st verification returned undeliverable 46 # of verification returned by voter 25 Confirmations # of confirmations returned by voter 40 # of confirmations sent 46 # of confirmations returned undeliverable 54 # of confirmations not returned at all 1,913 COUNTY STATISTICAL Constitution 0 Democratic 50,160 Green 30 Libertarian 1,474 Republican 52,966 Unaffiliated 70,869 American Indian 378 Asian 1,373 Black 18,844 Multi-Racial 831 Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 12 White 134,732 Other 3,890 Undesignated 15,439 Hispanic 3,827 Not Hispanic 115,635 Undesignated 56,037 vtr_nvra_stat.rpt Page 3 of 5Jun 08, 2023 2:04 pm NVRA REPORTNEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS Female 85,673 Male 72,835 Undesignated 16,991 Unprocessed Registrations - Incomplete Queue 00 - No Application Source 15 01 - Public Assistance 13 02 - Disability 1 03 - Other (ESC) 0 04 - Armed Forces 0 05 - DMV 174 06 - Mail-in 0 07 - In-person 0 08 - Library & High School 0 09 - Spanish Language Application 1 10 - Online Registration 3 17 - Registration Drives 12 21 - Medicaid Renewal 0 95 - Voter Return of NCOA 2 96 - Temporary FWAB Registrant 0 97 - Temporary FPCA Registrant 0 98 - Voter Change On Confirmation 10 99 - Voter Change On Verification 0 Unprocessed Registrations - Archive Queue 00 - No Application Source 1 01 - Public Assistance 0 02 - Disability 0 03 - Other (ESC) 0 04 - Armed Forces 0 05 - DMV 0 06 - Mail-in 0 07 - In-person 0 08 - Library & High School 0 09 - Spanish Language Application 0 10 - Online Registration 0 17 - Registration Drives 0 21 - Medicaid Renewal 0 95 - Voter Return of NCOA 0 96 - Temporary FWAB Registrant 0 97 - Temporary FPCA Registrant 0 98 - Voter Change On Confirmation 0 99 - Voter Change On Verification 0 Unprocessed Registrations - Review Queue 00 - No Application Source 0 01 - Public Assistance 0 02 - Disability 0 03 - Other (ESC) 0 04 - Armed Forces 0 05 - DMV 0 06 - Mail-in 0 07 - In-person 0 vtr_nvra_stat.rpt Page 4 of 5Jun 08, 2023 2:04 pm NVRA REPORTNEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS 08 - Library & High School 0 09 - Spanish Language Application 0 10 - Online Registration 0 17 - Registration Drives 0 21 - Medicaid Renewal 0 96 - Temporary FWAB Registrant 0 97 - Temporary FPCA Registrant 0 vtr_nvra_stat.rpt Page 5 of 5Jun 08, 2023 2:04 pm 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 APPROVED REG REMOVED REG NVRA Monthly Statistics: Total Removed and Approved Registrations 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 Jul-22 Aug-22 Sep-22 Oct-22 Nov-22 Dec-22 Jan-23 Feb-23 Mar-23 Apr-23 May-23 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 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-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 Jul-22 Aug-22 Sep-22 Oct-22 Nov-22 Dec-22 Jan-23 Feb-23 Mar-23 Apr-23 May-23 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 1ST & 2ND VERIFICATIONS MAILED 1ST NCOA MAILED UNDELIVERABLE 1ST VERFICATION RETURNED VERIFICATIONS MAILED CONFIRMATIONS RETURNED CONFIRMATIONS UNDELIVERABLE CONFIRMATIONS NVRA Monthly Statistics: Voter Card Mailings 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 Jul-22 Aug-22 Sep-22 Oct-22 Nov-22 Dec-22 Jan-23 Feb-23 Mar-23 Apr-23 May-23 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 June 13, 2023 Subject: Chair Carter’s request to discuss Member Kemp’s proposed motion that Director sends email to State Board to improve observer training for election officials as it relates specifically to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163- 45(c) Applicable Statutes and/or Rules: N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-45(c) Summary: Chair Carter has requested a new business item to discuss Member Kemp’s suggestion for motion at the June 13th meeting. Specifically, Member Kemp’s suggested motion is “Ask Rae to email NCSBE to request that their/our judge training and handout materials be updated to include the statutory requirement that "...the chief judge and judges of elections shall permit the observer to make such observation and take such notes as the observer may desire." subject to the several constraints in the same first sentence of 163-45 (c) which are already effectively included in such materials.” Mr. Kemp also shared that “It is my sense that our judges are not aware of this statutory requirement and are constraining observers in a fashion counter to the law. Hopefully getting this request to NCSBE asap will allow the Board the necessary lead time to update materials for the upcoming municipal election.” I reached out to the legal team at the NC State Board of Elections to share Mr. Kemp’s interpretation of this statute and his assertion that our judges are not be complying with the law as it relates to observer conduct. Paul Cox, the General Counsel at the State Board, shared the following information that was sent to a member of the legislature last year when a similar complaint was raised about the State Board’s guidance on observers. “The State Board’s guidance is consistent with the law. The person who wrote in to complain has not identified any specific ways that the guidance is inconsistent with the law. They instead refer vaguely to “burdensome and unmerited restrictions,” without addressing what, specifically, in the guidance is violating the law. In fact, the observer guide that the writer is criticizing has been in use since at least 2016, with only minor revisions. As explained further below, our impression is that the writer is conflating local misunderstandings or the inability of a single observer to be all places at one time with alleged problems with State Board guidance. None of the State Board’s guidance confines observers to a specific area in the voting place. The State Board’s guidance, by design, is not so prescriptive. All voting sites are configured differently. Some sites provide ample space for observers to move about in the area where they still cannot view voted ballots or confidential voter information, or have access to voting equipment or ballots. Other sites, however, are quite small and there may be no extra space, beyond an area designated by the site lead, for the movement of observers in a way that would not impede the flow of voters or position observers in a location where they could view confidential voter information or have access to election equipment or ballots. And, of course, observers must be kept from interfering with or intimidating any voters. Item # 2 Item # 4 For full context, the state law that pertains to the conduct of observers is not limited to GS 163- 45(c). That provision states, in full, “[a]n observer shall do no electioneering at the voting place, and shall in no manner impede the voting process or interfere or communicate with or observe any voter in casting a ballot, but, subject to these restrictions, the chief judge and judges of elections shall permit the observer to make such observation and take such notes as the observer may desire.” Other provisions of law forbid observers from going certain places in the voting enclosure, to ensure the privacy of voters and the integrity of the state’s elections. Election officials must always be mindful that observers are representatives of the political parties. They take no oath (by law) and are not election officials; they are, instead, representatives of an organization with an interest in the outcome of the election. And county- appointed site managers have broad authority to ensure order within the voting site and to avoid disruptions or interference with voters. They enforce these requirements with respect to both Democratic and Republican observers. There are, after all, typically observers from each party participating in any given county. Below are some of the authorities that pertain to the limitations on what observers may (or may not) do in a voting enclosure: 08 NCAC 20 .0101 ELECTION OBSERVERS . . . (c) Observers at Voting Place. No more than two precinct-specific observers from each political party may be in the voting enclosure at any time. Only one at-large observer from each political party may be in the voting enclosure at any time, even if no precinct-specific observers are present. All observers, whether precinct-specific or at-large, may be relieved after serving no less than four hours; however, the total number of observers from each party cannot exceed three total observers in the voting enclosure at one time: two precinct-specific observers and one county or State at-large observer. An observer may leave the voting place without having served for four hours, but the observer cannot be replaced by a new observer until at least four hours have passed since the first observer began serving. An observer who leaves the voting place for any reason may be prohibited by the chief judge from returning if the observer's return would cause a disruption in the voting enclosure. (d) Observer Conduct. Observers who engage in prohibited conduct after receiving a warning may be required by the chief judge to leave the voting enclosure. Prohibited activities by observers include: (1) Wearing or distributing campaign material or electioneering; (2) Impeding or disrupting the voting process or speaking with voters or election assistants; (3) Interfering with the privacy of the voter, including positioning themselves in such a way that they can view confidential voter information on poll books or laptops or standing in such a way that they can view the contents of ballots inserted into a tabulator; (4) Using an electronic device to film or take photographs inside the voting enclosure; (5) Taking photographs, videos, or recording a voter without the consent of the voter and the chief judge; (6) Entering the voting booth area or attempting to view voted ballots; (7) Boarding a vehicle containing curbside voters; and (8) Providing voter assistance. . . . . 08 NCAC 04 .0306 DUTIES OF CUSTODIANS OF VOTING SYSTEMS (a) The chair of the county board of elections shall be responsible for the safekeeping, storage, maintenance and care of the voting system. The voting system shall be stored in a location such that access is restricted to county board of elections staff and the system cannot be tampered with when not in use on election day. The county board of elections may appoint as many persons as determined necessary for the maintenance, storage and care of the voting system and for the preparation and testing of the voting system and delivery to the voting precincts preceding a primary or an election. Persons employed for this purpose shall be compensated for their services as authorized by the county board of elections. (b) On election day when the system is used for voting purposes and until the chair of the county board collects the system, the voting system shall be under the supervision and control of the chief judge unless the county board of elections authorizes another elections official to have supervision and control. 08 NCAC 10B .0101 TASKS AND DUTIES OF PRECINCT OFFICIALS AT VOTING PLACES . . . (b) Tasks of Precinct Chief Judge - Precinct Chief Judges, in accordance with election statutes, within the Rules of the State Board of Elections, and under the supervision of the county board of elections, shall have the following tasks to perform as to each primary or election: . . . (17) ensure the maintenance of and appearance of efficient, impartial, and honest election administration at the precinct as required by G.S. 163-166.5(3); (18) monitor the grounds around the voting place to ensure compliance with the limitation on activity in the buffer zone under G.S. 163-166.4(a); (19) ensure peace and good order at the voting place as required by G.S. 163-48. Examples of peace and good order include: (A) keeping open and unobstructed the place at which voters or persons seeking to register or vote have access to the place of registration and voting; (B) preventing and stopping attempts to obstruct, intimidate, or interfere with any person in registering or voting; (C) protecting challengers and witnesses against molestation and violence in the performance of their duties; and (D) ejecting from the place of registration or voting any challenger or witness for violation of any provisions of the election laws or rules. (20) ensure that voters are able to cast their votes in dignity, good order, impartiality, convenience, and privacy as required in G.S. 163-166.7(c) and 08 NCAC 10B .0101; . . . (g) General duties of all Precinct Officials - All precinct officials, in accordance with election statutes, with the rules of the State Board of Elections and under the supervision of the county board of elections, shall perform all of the following: (1) count votes when votes are required to be counted at the voting place, G.S. 163- 182.2; (2) make an unofficial report of returns to the county board of elections, G.S. 163- 182.2; (3) certify the integrity of the vote and the security of the official ballots at the voting place, G.S. 163-182.2; (4) return official ballots and equipment to the county board of elections, G.S. 163- 182.2; (5) ensure that the voting system cannot be tampered with throughout the period voting is being conducted; (6) ensure that only properly voted official ballots are introduced into the voting system; (7) ensure that, except as provided by G.S. 163-166.9, no official ballots leave the voting enclosure during the time voting is being conducted there; (8) ensure that all improperly voted official ballots are returned to the precinct officials and marked as spoiled; (9) ensure that voters leave the voting place after voting; (10) ensure that voters not eligible to vote in the precinct but who seek to vote there are given assistance in voting a provisional official ballot or guidance to another voting place where they are eligible to vote; (11) ensure that information gleaned through the voting process that would be helpful to the accurate maintenance of the voter registration records, including any updates to a voter's voter registration, is recorded and delivered to the county board of elections; (12) ensure that registration records can only be accessed by precinct officials; (13) ensure that party observers are given access as provided by G.S. 163-45 to current information about which voters have voted; . . . . § 163-47. Powers and duties of chief judges and judges of election. (a) The chief judges and judges of election shall conduct the primaries and elections within their respective precincts fairly and impartially, and they shall enforce peace and good order in and about the place of registration and voting. On the day of each primary and general and special election, the precinct chief judge and judges shall remain at the voting place from the time fixed by law for the commencement of their duties there until they have completed all those duties, and they shall not separate nor shall any one of them leave the voting place except for unavoidable necessity. . . . . § 163-48. Maintenance of order at place of registration and voting. The chief judge and judges of election shall enforce peace and good order in and about the place of registration and voting. They shall especially keep open and unobstructed the place at which voters or persons seeking to register or vote have access to the place of registration and voting. They shall prevent and stop improper practices and attempts to obstruct, intimidate, or interfere with any person in registering or voting. They shall protect challenger and witnesses against molestation and violence in the performance of their duties, and they may eject from the place of registration or voting any challenger or witness for violation of any provisions of the election laws. They shall prevent riots, violence, tumult, or disorder. In the discharge of the duties prescribed in the preceding paragraph of this section, the chief judge and judges may call upon the sheriff, the police, or other peace officers to aid them in enforcing the law. They may order the arrest of any person violating any provision of the election laws, but such arrest shall not prevent the person arrested from registering or voting if he is entitled to do so. The sheriff, police officers, and other officers of the peace shall immediately obey and aid in the enforcement of any lawful order made by the precinct election officials in the enforcement of the election laws. The chief judge and judges of election of any precinct, or any two of such election officials, shall have the authority to deputize any person or persons as police officers to aid in maintaining order at the place of registration or voting. § 163-165.1. Scope and general rules. . . . (e) Voted ballots and paper and electronic records of individual voted ballots shall be treated as confidential, and no person other than elections officials performing their duties may have access to voted ballots or paper or electronic records of individual voted ballots except by court order or order of the appropriate board of elections as part of the resolution of an election protest or investigation of an alleged election irregularity or violation. Voted ballots and paper and electronic records of individual voted ballots shall not be disclosed to members of the public in such a way as to disclose how a particular voter voted, unless a court orders otherwise. Any person who has access to an official voted ballot or record and knowingly discloses in violation of this section how an individual has voted that ballot is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. § 163-166.3. Limited access to the voting enclosure. (a) Persons Who May Enter Voting Enclosure. - During the time allowed for voting in the voting place, only the following persons may enter the voting enclosure: (1) An election official. (2) An observer appointed pursuant to G.S. 163-45. (3) A runner appointed pursuant to G.S. 163-45, but only to the extent necessary to announce that runner's presence and to receive the voter list as provided in G.S. 163-45. (4) A person seeking to vote in that voting place on that day but only while in the process of voting or seeking to vote. (5) A voter in that precinct while entering or explaining a challenge pursuant to G.S. 163-87 or G.S. 163-88. (6) A person authorized under G.S. 163-166.8 to assist a voter but, except as provided in subdivision (7) of this section, only while assisting that voter. (7) Minor children of the voter under the age of 18, or minor children under the age of 18 in the care of the voter, but only while accompanying the voter and while under the control of the voter. (8) Persons conducting or participating in a simulated election within the voting place or voting enclosure, if that simulated election is approved by the county board of elections. (9) Any other person determined by election officials to have an urgent need to enter the voting enclosure but only to the extent necessary to address that need. (b) Photographing Voters Prohibited. - No person shall photograph, videotape, or otherwise record the image of any voter within the voting enclosure, except with the permission of both the voter and the chief judge of the precinct. If the voter is a candidate, only the permission of the voter is required. This subsection shall also apply to one-stop sites under G.S. 163-227.2, 163- 227.5, and 163-227.6. This subsection does not apply to cameras used as a regular part of the security of the facility that is a voting place or one-stop site. (c) Photographing Voted Ballot Prohibited. - No person shall photograph, videotape, or otherwise record the image of a voted official ballot for any purpose not otherwise permitted under law. § 163-166.4. Limitation on activity in the voting place and in a buffer zone around it. (a) Buffer Zone. - No person or group of persons shall hinder access, harass others, distribute campaign literature, place political advertising, solicit votes, or otherwise engage in election-related activity in the voting place or in a buffer zone which shall be prescribed by the county board of elections around the voting place. In determining the dimensions of that buffer zone for each voting place, the county board of elections shall, where practical, set the limit at 50 feet from the door of entrance to the voting place, measured when that door is closed, but in no event shall it set the limit at more than 50 feet or at less than 25 feet. . . . . § 163-166.6. Designation of tasks. The State Board of Elections shall promulgate rules for the delegation of tasks among the election officials at each precinct. Those rules shall emphasize: (1) The need to place primary managerial responsibility upon the chief judge. (2) The need to have maximum multiparty participation in all duties where questions of partisan partiality might be raised. (3) The need to provide flexibility of management to the county board of elections and to the chief judge, in consideration of different abilities of officials, the different availability of officials, and the different needs of voters precinct by precinct. § 163-166.7. Voting procedures. . . . (c) (Effective December 1, 2019 - see note) The State Board of Elections shall promulgate rules for the process of voting. Those rules shall emphasize the appearance as well as the reality of dignity, good order, impartiality, and the convenience and privacy of the voter. Those rules, at a minimum, shall include procedures to ensure that all the following occur: (1) The voting system remains secure throughout the period voting is being conducted. (2) Only properly voted official ballots are introduced into the voting system. (3) Except as provided by G.S. 163-166.9, no official ballots leave the voting enclosure during the time voting is being conducted there. The rules shall also provide that during that time no one shall remove from the voting enclosure any paper record or copy of an individually voted ballot or of any other device or item whose removal from the voting enclosure could permit compromise of the integrity of either the machine count or the paper record. (4) All improperly voted official ballots are returned to the precinct officials and marked as spoiled. (5) Voters leave the voting place promptly after voting. (6) Voters not clearly eligible to vote in the precinct but who seek to vote there are given proper assistance in voting a provisional official ballot or guidance to another voting place where they are eligible to vote. (7) Information gleaned through the voting process that would be helpful to the accurate maintenance of the voter registration records is recorded and delivered to the county board of elections. (8) The registration records are kept secure. The State Board of Elections shall permit the use of electronic registration records in the voting place in lieu of or in addition to a paper pollbook or other registration record. (9) Party observers are given access as provided by G.S. 163-45 to current information about which voters have voted. . . . . § 163-273. Offenses of voters; interference with voters; penalty. (a) Any person who shall, in connection with any primary or election in this State, do any of the acts and things declared in this section to be unlawful, shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor. It shall be unlawful: (1) For a voter, except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, to allow his ballot to be seen by any person. (2) For a voter to take or remove, or attempt to take or remove, any ballot from the voting enclosure. (3) For any person to interfere with, or attempt to interfere with, any voter when inside the voting enclosure. (4) For any person to interfere with, or attempt to interfere with, any voter when marking his ballots. (5) For any voter to remain longer than the specified time allowed by this Chapter in a voting booth, after being notified that his time has expired. (6) For any person to endeavor to induce any voter, while within the voting enclosure, before depositing his ballots, to show how he marks or has marked his ballots. (7) For any person to aid, or attempt to aid, any voter by means of any mechanical device, or any other means whatever, while within the voting enclosure, in marking his ballots. (b) Election officers shall cause any person committing any of the offenses set forth in subsection (a) of this section to be arrested and shall cause charges to be preferred against the person so offending in a court of competent jurisdiction. § 163-274. Certain acts declared misdemeanors. (a) Class 2 Misdemeanors. - Any person who shall, in connection with any primary or election in this State, do any of the acts and things declared in this subsection to be unlawful, shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor. It shall be unlawful to do any of the following: . . . (4) For any person to break up or by force or violence to stay or interfere with the holding of any primary or election, to interfere with the possession of any ballot box, election book, ballot, or return sheet by those entitled to possession of the same under the law, or to interfere in any manner with the performance of any duty imposed by law upon any election officer or member of any board of elections. (5) For any person to be guilty of any boisterous conduct so as to disturb any member of any election board or any chief judge or judge of election in the performance of that person's duties as imposed by law. . . . (16)For any person who is not an elections official or who is not otherwise authorized by law to retain a registrant's signature, full or partial Social Security number, date of birth, or the identity of the public agency at which the registrant registered under G.S. 163-82.20, any electronic mail address submitted under Article 7A of this Chapter, or drivers license number from any form described in G.S. 163-82.3 after submission of the form to the county board of elections or elections official. . . . . § 163-275. Certain acts declared felonies. Any person who shall, in connection with any primary, general or special election held in this State, do any of the acts or things declared in this section to be unlawful, shall be guilty of a Class I felony. It shall be unlawful: . . . (10)For any person to assault any chief judge, judge of election or other election officer while in the discharge of duties in the registration of voters or in conducting any primary or election. (11)For any person, by threats, menaces or in any other manner, to intimidate or attempt to intimidate any chief judge, judge of election or other election officer in the discharge of duties in the registration of voters or in conducting any primary or election. . . . . As the above authorities show, the management of the polling place involves many complex rules and requirements. To the extent a county-appointed election official is not permitting an observer to freely roam within a voting enclosure, it is likely in service to one or more of these legal requirements." As evidenced by these citations, there are numerous laws and rules that govern in-person voting and observer behavior. These rules and statues cannot be read in a vacuum since all relevant laws and rules must be considered when evaluating election processes and procedures. Board Action Required: Discuss As Necessary Regular Meeting New Hanover County Board of Elections June 13, 2023 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 Regular Meeting New Hanover County Board of Elections June 13, 2023 Subject: Closed Session Chairman Statement Prior to Closed Session: I move that the Board enter into closed session, under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-318.11(6) to discuss personnel matters. Applicable Statutes and/or Rules: N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-318.11(6) Summary: Closed session is required to discuss personnel matters under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-318.11(6). Board Action Required: Discuss as necessary Returning to Open Session: I move that the Board return to open session, under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-318.11(6), to conduct business remaining before the Board. Item # 2 Item # 6