Board Meeting Agenda Packet 01-10-2023
MEETING AGENDA
Date: January 10, 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 Caroline Dawkins, Elections Deputy Director
Lyana G. Hunter, Member Jenna Dahlgren, Elections Logistics Specialist
Bruce Kemp, Member Noelle Powers, Elections Systems Specialist
Russ C. Bryan, Member Joan Geiszler-Ludlum, Admin. Elections Technician
Visitor(s): Lisa Wurtzbacher, 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 (06/30, 10/04, 10/11, 10/18, 10/25, and 11/18/22)
2. Public Comment and Question Period
• 2-minute limit
• 20-minute limit total
3. Director’s Report
a. Financial Update
b. List Maintenance
c. FY 23/24 Budget Development Snapshot
d. Possible Precinct Consolidations (W13/W24 and W28/W32)
4. New Business
a. Adoption of Regular Meeting Schedule
b. Chair Carter’s request to discuss proposed resolution regarding board member access
to secure areas.
5. General Discussion
6. Adjournment
*Agenda packets are sent via email in advance of meetings.
Regular Meeting
New Hanover County Board of Elections
January 10, 2023
Subject:
Approval of Agenda
Summary:
N/A
Board Action Required:
Staff recommends approval
Item # 1d
Regular Meeting
New Hanover County Board of Elections
January 10, 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 6/30/2022, 10/04/2022, 10/11/22, 10/18/2022, 10/25/22, and
11/18/22 meetings.
Board Action Required:
Staff recommends approval
Item # 1d Item # 1e
DRAFT
Board Minutes 06/30/2022 Page | 1
SPECIAL MEETING
New Hanover County Board of Elections
June 30, 2022
1:00 P. M.
ATTENDANCE
Members: Oliver Carter III, Chair
Derrick R. Miller, Secretary
Russ C. Bryan, Member
Lyana G. Hunter, Member
Bruce Kemp, Member
Staff: Rae Hunter-Havens, Executive Director
Caroline Dawkins, Deputy Director
Joan Geiszler-Ludlum, Administrative Technician
Visitors: Lisa Wurtzbacher, Assistant County Manager; Kemp Burpeau, Deputy
County Attorney
Public Attendees: Elizabeth Burns, Jennifer Houseman, Derrick Anderson, Taxpayers;
Rocky Jeter-Webb, Diane Zaryki, Concerned Citizens-Taxpayers;
Deborah Abel, Nancy Hall, Pat Bradford; Susanne Werner,
Richard Poole, NHCDP; Michael Werner; Sidney Hoover, Star-
News
Virtual attendees: None, livestreaming was not available
1. MEETING OPENING
a. Call to Order
Chair Carter called the meeting to order at 1:03 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 with Member Hunter
arriving shortly after the meeting was called to order. Chair Carter called the meeting to
order at 1:03 p.m.
b. Preliminary Announcements
Formatted: Bottom: 1"
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
DRAFT
Board Minutes 06/30/2022 Page | 2
Chair Carter reminded the audience to silence their cell phones and that the meeting is
being recorded and live streamed on the internet. All members were present.
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 approval of the agenda as presented, second by Secretary Miller.
Motion carried unanimously.
2. New Business
Chair Carter introduced the Board members and staff. He gave an overview of the
purpose of the meeting: preliminary consideration of the protest petition filed by Jennifer
Ingulli alleging a defect in the manner in which votes were counted in the New Hanover
County Democratic Primary School Board contest, and alleging a violation of election
law, irregularity, or misconduct sufficient to cast doubt on the apparent results of the
election. Chair Carter said there is no public comment period or public participation due
to the quasi-judicial nature of the proceeding. He reminded the audience again to silence
their cell phones. Given the solemn nature of the hearing, he asked the Board to speak
dispassionately and based on facts.
Chair Carter outlined the due process considerations for the quasi-judicial hearing which
assure that the tribunal, in this case the Board, is free of bias. He read from the School of
Government Handbook the sections regarding bias and recusal of Board members in a
quasi-judicial proceeding:
The parties to this case are entitled to an impartial board. A
board member may not participate in this hearing if she or
he has a fixed opinion about the matter, a financial interest
in the outcome of the matter, or a close relationship with an
affected person. Does any board member have any partiality
to disclose and recusal to offer?
Hearing no offers to disclose, Chair Carter continued:
It is the policy of this board that a recused member shall step
down from the dais and may take a seat with the audience.
The board member may return to the dais for the next matter.
The parties to this case have rights for any ex parte
communication to be disclosed. Ex parte communication is
any communication about the case outside of the hearing.
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Justified, Indent: Left: 1", Right: 1"
Formatted: Justified, Indent: Left: 1", Right: 1"
Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Italic
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Italic
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
DRAFT
Board Minutes 06/30/2022 Page | 3
That may include site visits as well as conversations with
parties, staff, or the general public. Does any board member
have any conversations or other communications to
disclose?
Member Kemp asked Chair Carter to restate the section on ex parte communications.
Chair Carter said ex parte communication means any communication outside of the
hearing. Board members made the following disclosures regarding their ex parte
communications:
• Chair Carter said that he has had communication with the Director, Rae Hunter-
Havens, regarding the protest and hearing procedures.
• Member Kemp said he has had communication with Nelson Beaulieu and Jenna
Bosch during the recounts and after the final recount; he spoke with Diane Zaryki,
the person who assisted the protester, Diane Zaryki;; and he has been in email
communication with others.
• Chair Carter said he has spoken with each board member regarding the filed
protest and about recusal.
Secretary Miller said he had questions about the various documents circulated by
Member Kemp and whether those documents address the substance of the protest,
intentions to protest and appeals, stances and conclusions about the issues. What are the
implications of such statements?
and whether those documents address the substance of the protest, intentions to protest and
appeals, stances and conclusions about the issues. What are the implications of such
statements? Chair Carter asked Member Kemp whether all the board members were
copied on his emails. Member Kemp made the additional disclosure, regarding the June
10 meeting to discuss the sample hand-eye recount, that he intended to request a
voluntary recount if the margin between Mr. Nelson and Ms. Bosch was not sufficient for
the State Board of Elections (SBE) to order a full recount. He said SBE found the
differences in the vote totals were within acceptable tolerances due to the differences
between the sensitivity of the DS200s and the DS850. Chair Carter said now is not the
time to re-air previous issues.
Chair Carter noted that Member Kemp’s disclosures have been extensive. Chair Carter
asked whether any member has a personal interest in the outcome of the protest; has
prejudged the outcome of the preliminary review; or is biased? There was no response.
Chair Carter said, based on the disclosures we’ve heard from the board concerning
partiality and ex parte communications, does any member of the board or any party to
this matter have an objection to a board member’s participation in this hearing? Member
Hunter said she objects to Member Kemp’s participation based on his contacts with the
parties tocandidates who might be affected by the protest and based on his name
appearing as a witness on the submitted protest form. Chair Carter said that in an email
the previous week, Member Kemp had stated his intention to recuse himself, but the
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
DRAFT
Board Minutes 06/30/2022 Page | 4
previous day had said he had reconsidered, wanting to present information and then
recuse himself onfrom the vote on the matter.
Chair Carter asked Member Kemp if he was confident that he could be impartial in light
of his previous remarks? Member Hunter said she has questions about the substance of
the assistance Member Kemp has provided to the protester. Member Kemp asked
whether Member Hunter’s question is in order. Chair Carter ruled the question is in
order. Member Kemp said he spoke with Diane Zaryki, and she used terms from those
conversations in the protest form.
Chair Carter asked Member Kemp if he had any subsequent discussions with Ms. Zaryki?
Member Kemp said he had subsequent oral and email discussions. Chair Carter asked
the nature of those discussions. Member Kemp said they discussed the protest process,
and his reading of the statutes and; beyond that he is unable to recall but perhaps could
refresh his memory by reviewing his emails. He said none of that prevents his
impartiality in the hearing. Hearing no further objection and no motion to recuse any
member, Chair Carter proceeded with the hearing.
Chair Carter reviewed the matters to be considered in the hearing. First, the Board would
consider any procedural issues, then address any substantive issues. These issues will be
examined based on the four corners of the filed protest form. Chair Carter then reviewed
the questions to be answered in the Board’s findings from the preliminary hearing:
Procedural Analysis
1. Is the Board authorized to grant the relief sought by Ms. Ingulli?
2. Does Ms. Ingulli have standing to file an election protest in this recount?
3. Was the protest filed timely?
a. 24-hour deadline under 08 NCAC 09.0116(g)
b. 48-hour deadline under N. C. Gen. Stat. § 163-182.9(a)
Substantive Analysis
1. Regulations governing dismissal under 08 NCAC 02.0114
2. Probable cause
3. DoThe Protest contains five specific allegations, and the issues raised in the
protestBoard must determine whether any of these five allegations establish
probable cause that an irregularity occurred (quotingnumbers (a) through (e)
below are quoted verbatim from the filed protest)?):
“
a. Irregularities between elections & recounting was [sic]
sufficient to flip the outcome twice?”?
b. “Number of votes tabulated & changed results make it
unclear as to the actual winner?”?
c. “So many votes changed [that it is] not reasonable to
conclude that either the process is accurate or that the
voters determined the outcome of this election.”.
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Underline
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5"
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Indent: Left: 1"
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Underline
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5"
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Justified, Right: 1"
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
DRAFT
Board Minutes 06/30/2022 Page | 5
d. “Irregularities were to the extent that they taint the result
of the entire race & cast doubt on its fairness.”.
e. “Printed procedures were not followed at recount.”.
4. Does the Protest establish probable cause that theany such irregularity changed
the outcome of the election?
Member Kemp asked if impropriety is included in the term irregularity? Chair Carter
said he is using irregularity to include violation and impropriety. Chair Carter checked in
with the board members that they have had the opportunity to review the filed protest and
related documents,.
Chair Carter then proceeded with the analysis laid out above, beginning with the questionasked
whether the Board is authorized to grant theorder that a new be held election, which is the
only relief sought by the protestor. Member Kemp asked if the question of the scope of
Board’s authority is required by NC Gen. Stat. § 163-182.9? Chair Carter said it is a
basic jurisdictional issue whether the matter lies within the Board’s authority. Member
Kemp said he does not see any such criteria listed in NC Gen. Stat. § 163-182.11 as a
basis for appeal. Chair Carter said the Board is not considering an appeal. Member
Kemp said he misspoke and meant the protest. Chair Carter referred him to NC Gen.
Stat. § 163-182.9(b)(3). 1
In response to further question from Member Kemp, Chair Carter said that the protest is
not justiciable if the remedy requested is not one that the County Board of Elections can
grant. Member Kemp said the standard is whether the protest as filed substantially
complies with the requirements of § 163-182.9. That determination requires the Board to
view the protest filing in its entirety, not looking at any one factor. He said that is the
purpose of the preliminary hearing and he is challenged by Chair Carter’s conclusion.
Chair Carter moved to find that the protest is improperly filed because this Board is not
authorized to grant the remedy the protester seeks, second by Member Hunter, stating
that she agrees with that conclusion and there is no need to go beyond that consideration.
Chair Carter called for any discussion. Member Kemp said § 163-182.10 presents two
questions to consider in the preliminary hearing: whether the protest substantially
complies with § 163-182.9 and whether it establishes probable cause to believe that a
violation of election law or irregularity or misconduct has occurred. He said the answer
to both questions is yes. Chair Carter said he disagreed and directed the Board’s attention
to § 163-182.10(d)(2)(a).)2.
1 N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-182.9(b)(3) provides that “The protest shall state what remedy the protester is
seeking.”
2 N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-182.10(d)(2)(a) provides that “The conclusions the county board may state, and
their consequences for the board's order, are as follows: …’The protest should be dismissed because it does
not substantially comply with G.S. 163-182.9.’ If the board makes this conclusion, it shall order the protest
dismissed.”
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5"
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
DRAFT
Board Minutes 06/30/2022 Page | 6
Secretary Miller called the question. Member Kemp said § 163-182.10(d) applies to the
actual hearing, not the preliminary hearing which is addressed in § 163-182.10(a).
Member Hunter said § 163-182.10(a)(1) contains the same language as (d). Member
Kemp said § 163-182.10(c) also requires hearing new evidence. Member Bryan said the
prescribed protest form is addressed to the county board of elections but, and he asked
whether it is also used to file a protest with the State Board of Elections. Chair Carter
said he believes that it is. The protest requests that a new election be held, which can
only be granted by the State Board of Elections. In this case, the protest could be filed
with the State Board to seek that remedy. Chair Carter said the form is used for filing a
protest with either Board of Elections.
[Staff advised the Board that the meeting livestream, audio, and recording capability were
not available due to an unscheduled software update. Director Hunter-Havens began
audio recording the meeting. The audio recording is available on the New Hanover
County Board of Elections website,
https://elections.nhcgov.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/06.30.2022-BOE-Meeting.m4a.]
https://elections.nhcgov.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/06.30.2022-BOE-
Meeting.m4a.]
Chair Carter restated the motion on the floor is to dismiss the protest because it seeks a
new election, which is a form of relief that this Board is not authorized to grant. He said
that the Board will continue through the other criteria as well even if this motion is
adopted. He called for the votes. Chair Carter, Secretary Miller, Members Bryan and
Hunter voted aye; Member Kemp abstained. Motion carried by majority vote.
Chair Carter moved to the next consideration, whether Ms. Ingulli has standing to file an
election protest of this recount. He reviewed the hierarchy of the various applicable
sources of law: first, the General Statutes, then regulations in the Administrative Code,
then formal guidance from the State Board, then informal guidance from the State Board.
It is important to remember that hierarchy as the Board considers this question of
standing.
He said that the regulation in the NC Administrative Code, 08 NCAC 09.0106(g)), states
that any candidate shall have the right to file a protest within 24 hours after completion
of a discretionary recount, or by noon on the next business day of the county board of
elections, whichever is later, if the protest is related to the conduct of the recount and may
only address allegations related to the recount. In comparison, NC Gen. Stat. § 163-
182.9(a) states any eligible voter in the election or any candidate may file a protest.
Where there is tension between thea statute and a regulation, it is ordinarily the Board’s
duty to attempt to interpret the statute and the regulation in such a way as to give effect to
both. But where they are in conflict and irreconcilable, the Board must enforcefollow the
statute. Chair Carter said in his opinion the usual hierarchy does not apply because the
statute, in two places, explicitly authorizes the State Board of Elections to promulgate
rules for conducting recounts, subject to stated guidelines. (NC N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
DRAFT
Board Minutes 06/30/2022 Page | 7
182.7(a))). Therefore, more weight than usual must be given to the regulation, 08 NCAC
09.0106(g), which allows only candidates to file a protest of a recount, instead of the
broader statutory rule allowing candidates and eligible voters to file an election protest.
Chair Carter moved to dismiss the protest because Ms. Ingulli lacks standing to file this
protest, second by Secretary Miller. Chair Carter called for any discussion of the motion
and directed the Board’s attention to the materials in the agenda packet.
Secretary Miller said he wanted it noted that, were the statute to control, it would render
the regulation meaningless. Member Bryan asked whether the basis for dismissal is
solely the provision in the Administrative Code that only a candidate can file a protest
and the protester is not a candidate? Chair Carter cautioned the Board about relying on
the red book of Election Laws and Related Rules because it is now out of date and the
current versions are available online. Chair Carter said the basis for dismissal is the
Administrative Code requirement that only a candidate may file a protest of a
discretionary recount.
Member Bryan noted that the protest form allows filing by either a candidate or an
eligible registered voter, but in this situation involving a recount, only a candidate is
eligible to file a protest. Chair Carter confirmed that is his conclusion, and added that is
the closest question before the Board. Member Bryan said that was also one of the bases
for the Director’s recommendation to dismiss the protest. Member Bryan said he
wondered what the objection is to that recommendation. Either you are or you are not a
candidate who is eligible to file the protest. He said he would like to hear more on that
question.
Member Kemp said that NC Gen. Stat. §163-182.7 governs ordering recounts and §163-
182.7A sets additional provisions for hand-eye recounts. The protest alleges
irregularities between the result of the original election canvass and the result of the
recount. It is not about ordering recounts or conducting hand-eye recounts. He contends
the matter before the Board is an election protest, not a recount protest, and therefore
standing is determined by §163-182.9(a), not by the NCAC regulation.
Member Bryan asked Member Kemp for clarification: are you saying there is an
irregularity between the result of the election and the recount? Member Kemp said that is
the protest’s first allegation. Member Bryan asked if it is an irregularity or a difference?
Member Kemp said irregularity is defined in the statute. Member Kemp said he bases
that on his conversations with the writer of the protest.
Member Bryan said he had previously understood Member Kemp to say he had not had
conversations with the writer. Member Kemp said he spoke with Diane Zaryki who is
listed in item 11 as having assisted the protester in preparing the protest form, which he
had disclosed earlier. He never spoke with Ms. Ingulli. He said he checked the voter
registration database to confirm that the protester is an eligible registered voter because
she is registered as an unaffiliated voter.
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Bold
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
DRAFT
Board Minutes 06/30/2022 Page | 8
Secretary Miller asked what constitutes an irregularity? There is a difference between an
irregularity and an expectation. It is his understanding that a change in the vote totals
between Election Day and the recount is not an irregularity but rather an expectation. He
said he understands an irregularity as something that is contrary to procedure or a
regulation. Chair Carter said that is more a substantive issue, but the procedural and the
substantive issues bleed into each other. Determining an irregularity is an issue for later
in the preliminary hearing.
Member Hunter said she wanted to return to the objection she raised earlier regarding
Member Kemp’s participation in the hearing. She understands that Member Kemp said
he has spoken with the person who wrote the protest and assisted the person who wrote
the protest. She understands those conversations occurred both verbally and by email.
She said she is not sure how a board member can be an unbiased participant in the
hearing in light of those conversations. It is not one conversation about his concerns
being mirrored in the protest, but a matter of on-going conversations that occurred in
writing and orally, both before and after the protest was filed. She
Member Hunter said she objects to Member Kemp’s participation in the hearing and
these discussions because he appears biased. Coupled with the emails the Board has
received over the past two weeks from Member Kemp in which he has outlined his
thoughts and position about different board membersmembers’ participation, she is having
a hard time imagining how anyone can be impartial under these circumstances. She now
wishes to object to his continued participation and offered to make a motion to recuse
Member Kemp. He has declined to recuse himself, although a week ago he said he
would probably recuse himself for these reasons. She said she wanted to be clear that she
has this concern with this matter going forward, and having a discussion with people who
have had no contact with the folks who filed the protest versus a person who has had
ongoing conversation with the person who assisted the protester in writing the protest.
Chair Carter said he understands Member Hunter’s concerns and that she can make a
motion that another Board member be recused,; that is permissible. That motion would
require a second and discussion, and it would be decided by a majority. Member Hunter
moved that Member Kemp be recused for the remainder of the preliminary consideration
hearing. Chair Carter called for a second. Member Kemp objected that there is a motion
already on the table. Chair Carter said that is his motion which is a substantive motion,
and this is a procedural motion that the Board should go ahead to consider. Secretary
Miller seconded Member Hunter’s motion for purposes of discussion. Chair Carter
called for discussion of the motion to recuse Member Kemp for the remainder of the
hearing.
Member Kemp would make a countermotion that there appears to be a significant bias
against the protest by most of the parties participating in this discussion. It does not
appear to be a balanced evaluation of the concerns expressed by the protester, and it
seems that from the beginning we have had that bias. He said he would call into question
the perceived bias of every player aside from him regarding the conduct of this protest.
Member Bryan asked Member Kemp if he is saying the Chair is biased? Member Kemp
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
DRAFT
Board Minutes 06/30/2022 Page | 9
said no, rather many of the comments and actions and the dismissal document are against
the protester. There does not appear to him to be an open mind here to evaluate the
protest.
Member Bryan said the Board is not here to evaluate the substance of the protest
obviously, that this is a procedural review of the format. He said all
this is irregular in that neither candidate is supporting this protest, but we need to
approach it dispassionately and he certainly does not want his fairness called into
question because he may come down on a different side than Member Kemp. Member
Bryan said he is doing his very best to follow the regulations and the laws in applying
those to the facts and circumstances presented. Unlike a regular hearing of some type,
we have been provided all the evidence well in advance so that we might review it and
research as you have yourself. That some members may have come to some conclusions
on some aspects is not surprising to him. But I do not conclude that indicates bias.
Member Kemp said that would be his statement too.
Secretary Miller offered one thought and one question. He is not clear how far the Board
can apply quasi-judicial principles here. He asked if it is normal for a judge in a case to
have on-
going conversations with the participants before hearing the case, issuing long statements
to
members of the public before it comes before the tribunal. He said he is not sure how far
to take that analogy, but he said it strikes him that these extended documented statements
sent out to the public and these on-going conversations before and after the filing of the
protest strikes him as unjudicial. He said he would like to hear Member Bryan’s views as
he is the only Board member of the same party as Member Kemp and is not the subject of
the motion. Member Kemp asked the Chair to restate Secretary Miller’s question as he
did not follow it. Chair Carter said Secretary Miller asked for Member Bryan’s view on
the motion.
Member Bryan said he is unlikely to vote in favor of this motion because he feels it is
incumbent on all the members to determine and evaluate their level of participation in
producing the protest and advising others. He is not aware of the depth of that
involvement, but he was approached by someone who told him that Member Kemp was
on the radio discussing aspects of the protest. Member Kemp said he had not discussed
the protest on the radio, but he has discussed the election and recount process as a regular
commentator on all elections. Member Bryan said he is not in a position to fully
understand Member Kemp’s involvement, but he regularly attempts to be balanced in his
decisions. Member Bryan said he hopes nothing he said in this discussion causes
Member Kemp to think he is biased, but, again, he is not likely to vote for this motion.
Member Kemp said he wanted to note that he was the only Board member who attended
the entirety of the second recount, except for lunch time on Thursday. Chair Carter
thanked him again for making himself available throughout that time, as the presence of
one Republican Board member was required to be there and he was very generous with
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
DRAFT
Board Minutes 06/30/2022 Page | 10
his time and flexibility. Member Kemp said he wanted to acknowledge all the facts and
circumstances of the recount, not necessarily about his role.
Chair Carter said where he comes down on this motion is that the Board should recuse
Member Kemp, based on the number of communications and the detailed nature of the
communications over the last week and a half. Chair Carter said he thinks he understands
Member Kemp’s concerns, but this is not the appropriate procedural vehicle to hear those
concerns. He said he fears that, in the remainder of these proceedings, even though
Member Kemp wants to be unbiased and approach this with an open mind and do his
duty, he thinks it is appropriate for Member Kemp to be recused. He would be welcome
to remain in the meeting and listen. Chair Carter said this is not a judicial proceeding. It
is a quasi-judicial proceeding. Chair Carter said he is very uncomfortable with the way
this protest has come about and the degree of Member Kemp’s involvement in it, not
personally but from a quasi-judicial perspective.
Hearing no further discussion, Chair Carter called for the vote on the motion to recuse
Member Kemp for the duration of the preliminary consideration hearing. Chair Carter,
Secretary Miller and Member Hunter voted aye; Members Bryan and Kemp voted no.
Motion carried by majority
vote. Chair Carter directed Member Kemp to a reserved seat in the audience.
Chair Carter returned to consideration of the substantive motion before the Board,:
whether
the protester has standing to file an election protest of the recount. Pursuant to the
regulation under discussion, the protester does not have standing. The question before
the Board is whether the protester has standing under the statute, NC Gen. Stat. § 163-
182.7. We are considering the two enabling clauses, specifically §§ 163-182.7 and
182.9(a), specifically directing the State Board of Elections to adopt rules and regulations
for the conduct of recounts. Chair Carter said, in his view, those enabling clauses elevate
the regulation, in this narrow instance of a recount, to a superior position to the statute
which applies more generally to protests. It is for that reason that he made the motion,
which has been seconded, that the protest should be dismissed because the protester lacks
standing. Member Hunter said she is thinking that this explanation, along with Secretary
Miller’s question, why we have this code if we are not supposed to follow it. Taken
together she agrees with that view, that the protester does not have standing.
Chair Carter confirmed it is the basis for his standing argument, that 08 NCAC 09.0106 is
the operative provision, and the broader, more general provision in the statute does not
apply in this special situation, citing § 163-182.9(a). After reviewing the cited statute and
regulation, Member Bryan said Chair Carter’s reasoning and analysis is probably right,
but he is not confident in that conclusion.
Hearing no further discussion, Chair Carter called for a vote on the motion to dismiss the
protest because the protester is not a candidate and therefore lacks standing to file a
protest of the recount because she is not a candidate. Chair Carter, Secretary Miller, and
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
DRAFT
Board Minutes 06/30/2022 Page | 11
Member Hunter voted aye; Member Bryan voted no. Motion carried by majority vote,
establishing a second independent basis for dismissal.
Chair Carter moved to the third potential basis for dismissal,: whether the protest was
filed timely. He said this consideration turns on the same issue the Board previously
discussed: NCN.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-182.9(b) sets a 48-hour deadline after canvass to file
a protest concerning the counting or tabulating of votes, includingso long as the protest
includes a statement of good reason for delay, while 08 NCAC 09.0106(g) sets a deadline
of 24 hours or noon the following day, whichever is later, after a recount concerning the
conduct of the recount. He said it is important for the Board to consider each basis for
dismissal separately, on its own merits, from the two prior considerations. Chair Carter
moved the protest should be dismissed because it was not filed by the applicable
deadline. Chair Carter called for any discussion.
Member Bryan asked for clarification of the time the protest was filed. Chair Carter
confirmed the protest was filed at 2:40 p.m. on June 17. The recount concluded with
adjournment at 1:16 p.m. on June 16. That also marks the conclusion of the final canvass
for purposes of § 163-182.9(b). Member Bryan recalled having previous discussion as to
when the clock started on any protest that might be filed by a candidate. Chair Carter
said even though the Board has already determined that this protester lacked standing to
file the protest, the Board should consider the question of the timeliness of filing the
protest separately. That prompts him to ask the question this way: if the protester had
standing to file the protest under § 163-182.9(a), was the protest filed in accordance with
the deadline in that provision of the statute? He noted further
Chair Carter said that the regulation sets the protest filing deadline as 24- hours from the
conclusion of the recount, which the protester did not meet, while the statute sets two
different deadlines: one is before the beginning of the county canvass meeting, which for
the purposes of this discussion was the June 16 meeting; the other is 5:00 p.m. of the
second business day after the county board has completed its canvass and declared the
results. If there is an argument that the second deadline applies here, then the protest
would be filed timely. The second deadline would apply (1) if the protester presented
good cause for the delay, which it does not attempt to do in his opinion; or (2)
the protest addresses an irregularity other than vote counting or result tabulation. This is
where the issue bleeds from procedural analysis into substantive analysis because we
must review the substance of the protest in order to understand what the protest is
alleging and thus which deadline applies.
Secretary Miller said he seconded Chair Carter’s motion and said he agreed that the
protest did not meet the deadline set in 08 NCAC 09.0106(g), and that the canvass ended
upon the publication of the results. As for the statute deadline, while the protest form
does not state a good reason for delay, it does allege an irregularity in the last allegation,
that printed procedures were not followed in the recount, while the other allegations
which are called irregularities in fact are not irregularities.
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
DRAFT
Board Minutes 06/30/2022 Page | 12
Chair Carter said he understands the distinction Secretary Miller is making, and the fifth
allegation comes closest to stating an irregularity, but it lacks sufficient specificity to
amount to a true allegation of fact. After he wrestled with it, Chair Carter concluded that
an allegation of fact sufficient to withstand this level of review need not be very detailed,
but it needs to say something more specific. Here, the Board had numerous printed
documents providing guidance to the Board, none binding onof which the Board was
bound to follow, other than the statutes and the regulations.
The authority to conduct the recount is vested in this Board. This is getting into a
substantive discussion, but since the protest does not allege with any specificity what act
or omission was improper, he cannot even find it to be a statement of fact. The Board is
not obligated to second-guess what the protester is trying to say. When it comes to a
formal, solemn, serious, quasi-judicial proceeding, it is incumbent on the protester to set
forth the reasons for the protest, with reasonable specificity, as to what the Board is
alleged to have done wrong. Generally, protests that don’t contain that level of substance
are dismissed summarily and administratively. If there were a well-stated allegation of
fact, for instance, about a required procedure that the Board did not followedfollow, then
he would agree that this protester could file this protest, if she also meetingmet the other
standing requirements.
Member Hunter agreed that the challenge with the allegation is that it is too generic. The
last line might at best open the door but what does it point to? “Printed procedures”
could refer to anything. If the protest stated a specific concern with the referenced
procedures, it might be sufficient, but as presented it is too vague. Chair Carter noted
that the protester checked the box on the Election Protest Form that states the protest
alleges “a violation of election law, irregularity, or misconduct sufficient to cast doubt on
the apparent result of the election.” But then in question 6, which asks for factual
allegations supporting the protest, there is only the conclusory statement that “printed
procedures were not followed at recount.”
Member Bryan said that he understands all that and noted that a protest heard by the
previous Board was voted for hearing because the protest listed specific evidence for the
allegations. He objected to it then because it did not seem to have substance. If a
protester is going to make an allegation, they need to be prepared to substantiate it. If
they do not, it must be dismissed. These forms are signed under penalty of perjury and in
front of a notary. Anyone who is signing the form is doing so in the face of a Class I
felony, .
Member Bryan said he wants to give them the benefit of the doubt. The statement goes
on to say that the protester acknowledges she must “prove by substantial evidence either
the existence of a defect in the manner by which votes were counted or results tabulated
or the occurrence of a violation of election law, irregularity, or misconduct, either of
which were sufficient to cast doubt on the apparent results of the election.” Member
Bryan said, when someone is willing to subject themselves to a Class I felony, he wants
to believe they are taking the matter seriously and have actual, substantial evidence of the
alleged irregularities. He said he wants to give them the benefit of the doubt and hear
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
DRAFT
Board Minutes 06/30/2022 Page | 13
their basis for the allegation. He said he has concerns with lots of aspects of this protest.
But as to the motion before the Board regarding the 24-hour filing deadline, he said the
protest fails.
Chair Carter said the motion is whether it should be dismissed on the alternative grounds
that the
protester did not allege a substantive irregularity sufficient to avail herself of the 48-hours
after canvass deadline. Member Bryan asked if the motion is stated in the alternative,
and Chair Carter said it is. Member Bryan said he appreciates that Chair Carter is going
through each requirement, even though he feels it is not necessary, and respects his
purpose to air out all the issues. The Board could have stopped after the first vote, but
maybe it is best to go through each element. He favors the longer time frame and
acknowledges it is a close call.
Chair Carter said it is appropriate to identify all applicable bases on which the protest
may be dismissed and address each one in the Board’s final order, for the benefit of the
candidates, the protester and the public. Chair Carter addressed Member Bryan’s view to
give the protester the benefit of the doubt on signing the form in the face of the penalty of
a Class I felony, but said he had a different view. He said he was surprised the protester
would swear under penalty of perjury that her statements were true to her own knowledge
and then put down things that were not of her own knowledge. Member Bryan said it is a
good reminder that you do not file a protest because someone told you something.
Member Hunter raised a point of clarification, whether it makes sense to consider, if the
24-hour deadline applies, what is the board’s position? If the 48-hour deadline applies,
what is the Board’s position? She said it may be better to separate the two considerations
since the Board is working through each ground. She said it is getting confusing as to
which time frame to apply. In response to a question from Chair Carter, Member Hunter
said she is suggesting two different motions to make it cleaner and clearer.
Chair Carter withdrew his previous motion and made a new motion to dismiss the protest
because it was not filed within 24 hours of the final canvass and therefore, even if the
protester has standing to file the protest, under 08 NCAC 09.0106(g), the protester failed
to meet the applicable deadline, second by Secretary Miller. Chair Carter called for any
further discussion. In response to a question from Member Bryan, Chair Carter clarified
that the motion is a conditional statement, that if 08 NCAC 09.0106(g) applies to this
protest, it does not meet the 24-hour deadline. After additional discussion, Chair Carter
restated his motion: he moved the protest should be dismissed because, even if the
protester is found to have standing to file the protest under 08 NCAC 09.0106(g), itthe
protest was not filed within 24 hours and was therefore was not timely filed, second by
Member Hunter. Motion carried unanimously.
Chair Carter moved to dismiss the protest because, even if the longer deadline set forth
by NCN.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-182.9 is found to apply, the protest does not sufficiently
allege an irregularity so as to be entitled to avail herself of the 48-hour post-canvass
deadline, second by Member Hunter. Chair Carter called for any discussion.
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
DRAFT
Board Minutes 06/30/2022 Page | 14
Secretary Miller reviewed the requirements of NC Gen. Stat. § 163-182.9:
a. If the protest concerns the manner in which votes were counted or results
tabulated, the protest shall be filed before the beginning of the county
board of election's canvass meeting.
Secretary Miller said this section requires the protest to be filed before the canvass
meeting and this protest clearly was not filed timely.
b. If the protest concerns the manner in which votes were counted or results
tabulated and the protest states good cause for delay in filing, the protest
may be filed until 5:00 P.M. on the second business day after the county
board of elections has completed its canvass and declared the results.
Secretary Miller noted that the protest challenges the manner in which votes were
counted in sections 5 and 6. Chair Carter said this provision is a two-part standard: the
protest must both allege that and state good cause for delay. Secretary Miller said the
Board’s previous discussion was that the protest failed to state good cause for delay and
that was not contested among the Board members, although it was not voted upon. He
concluded that section b does not apply.
c. If the protest concerns an irregularity other than vote counting or result
tabulation, the protest shall be filed no later than 5:00 P.M. on the second
business day after the county board has completed its canvass and
declared the results.
Secretary Miller said this is where the Board debated whether the allegations of an
irregularity are sufficiently substantive. Chair Carter said, if the protest met this criterion,
the Board would find that the protest was filed before 5:00 P.M. on the second day after
completion of the canvass.
Secretary Miller said the Board is not actually debating the timeliness of filing the protest
but rather the type of irregularity alleged, namely an irregularity other than vote counting
or result tabulation. Chair Carter said this requires the Board to engage in some level of
substantive analysis to determine whether the statement rises to the level of an allegation.
Member Bryan has said that he is inclined to allow some leeway to the protester.
Chair Carter said his sense is that the statement does not rise to an actual allegation.
People filing protests must be diligent and seek the help of an attorney. He said he is not
inclined to give that level of deference to the protester. Secretary Miller said he finds it
confusing that the Board is discussing timing when the real question is, first, does it
concern an irregularity other than vote counting or result tabulation, and second, then
timing comes into the discussion. He would like to consider whether it meets the first
criteria separately, and then the timing issue.
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.75"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.75"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.75"
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
DRAFT
Board Minutes 06/30/2022 Page | 15
Chair Carter asked if it would be helpful to table his motion, proceed to discuss the
substantive issues, and then return to this question. Secretary Miller agreed that would be
helpful. Chair Carter said the statute asks the Board to conduct both procedural and
substantive review of the protest, which will automatically answer this procedural
question under discussion. Member Bryan said the Board is honing in on an unrelated
issue but he does not oppose doing so.
Chair Carter moved to table his previous motion, second by Secretary Miller. Hearing no
additional discussion on the motion to table, Chair Carter called for the vote. Motion
carried unanimously.
Chair Carter said the Board will proceed with discussion of the substantive analysis. He
directed the Board’s attention to 08 NCAC 02.0114, Dismissal of Improper Protest
Filings. Chair Carter read subsection (a):
(a) The county board of elections shall dismiss any matter purporting to arise as
an election protest under G.S. 163-182.9 on the following bases:
(1) The matter fails to contest the manner in which votes were counted or
results tabulated, or fails to allege a violation of election law or
irregularity or misconduct sufficient to cast doubt on the results of the
election;
(2) The individual submitting the matter was neither a registered voter
eligible to participate in the protested contest within the county nor a
candidate for nomination or election in the protested contest;
(3) The matter was not filed in accordance with G.S. 163-182.9 or was not
filed on the form prescribed in 08 NCAC 02 .0111;
(4) The protest is duplicative or was made for the purpose of delay;
(5) The protest filing, taking into account the totality of the circumstances,
fails to include evidence which, if true, substantiates the probable
occurrence of an
outcome-determinative defect in the manner in which votes were counted
or results tabulated, or the probable occurrence of an outcome-
determinative violation of election law, irregularity, or misconduct; or
(6) The matter, including the initial filing and all subsequent oral or
written submissions, fails to allege facts sufficient to constitute substantial
evidence of the occurrence of an outcome-determinative violation of
election law, irregularity, or misconduct.
The State Board may consider protests in accordance with G.S. 163-182.12.
Member Hunter asked that the quality of the audio recording be checked since the Board
is taking up discussion of a substantive manner. Both Chair Carter and Director Hunter-
Havens are recording the meeting on their cell phones in the absence of the usual
livestream audio and video recording. In response to Member Bryan’s question about the
necessity of a recording, Director Hunter-Havens said that recording the preliminary
consideration of the protest is optional. Should the matter move to a hearing, the services
of a court reporter for a transcript would be required.
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
DRAFT
Board Minutes 06/30/2022 Page | 16
Chair Carter noted the six listed bases for dismissal of the protest. If the Board
determines that the protest fits any one of these descriptions, then the Board will dismiss
the protest. Numbers (3) and (4) are not so much substantive as procedural, while (1), (5)
and (6) are substantive in nature. He read those subsections and said there is a lot going
on in each one.
Chair Carter said what all three sections have in common is that the protest must allege,
regardless of the act or omission stated, it must have altered the outcome of the election.
That is one part of the Board’s substantive inquiry. The second part is whether the
allegation establishes probable cause that the act or omission changed the outcome.
Chair Carter said he found this confusing initially because he did not see anything in the
statutes, but then found a line of cases where the courts have consistently held that if the
allegation is not outcome-determinative, or alleged to be outcome-determinative, it does
not get a hearing. He
Chair Carter said the decisions are clear and consistent over time: the irregularity alleged
must be sufficient to determine the outcome or alter the results of the election. He noted
that all three subsections of section (a) contain that language: “sufficient to cast doubt on
the results of the election.” One thing the Board must consider is whether this protest
sets forth probable cause that anything happened that changed the outcome. Another
component is this: does the protest set forth probable cause that an irregularity occurred,
meaning misconduct, irregularity or violation of election law, three related concepts
appearing throughout the statutes and regulations. Here, this protest does not allege any
violation of election law and no misconduct is alleged. Instead, the petition alleges
irregularities. That is the analysis: does it set forth probable cause that an irregularity
occurred, and does it set forth probable cause that the irregularity affected the outcome of
the election.
The statements contained in this protest are largely attempting to express discomfort with
how close the election contest was; how successive recounts affected the vote totals in the
contest; how the number of votes changed, suggesting that the vote totals would change if
counted again. Chair Carter said he thinks those are the three concerns this protester
attempts to articulate. But none of those are irregularities.
Chair Carter said this is an extremely close election for this school board contest, and
elections are not decided by two votes very often. The legislature has set a special set of
procedures that apply when an election is close, generally meaning within one percent of
the vote total3. Those procedures were followed here because the results in this contest
met those criteria. What the legislature and State Board of Elections have not done is set
another set of procedures to be followed when an election result is super-duper close.
While the concerns behind this protest are valid, he does not think those concerns
indicate an irregularity in the recount. His conclusion is that none of these statements put
3 In statewide contests, the unsuccessful candidate is only entitled to a recount if the result is within 0.5% of
the vote total. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-182.7(c)(2).
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
DRAFT
Board Minutes 06/30/2022 Page | 17
forth probable cause that an irregularity occurred. Most are conclusory statements and
express discomfort with the results of the recount.
Chair Carter moved that the protest should be dismissed because it does not set forth
probable cause that any irregularity, violation of law, or misconduct occurred, second by
Secretary Miller. He called on the Board to discuss the motion.
Member Bryan said he agrees as to allegations one through four, but the fifth allegation,
alleging printed procedures were not followed, if proved by substantial evidence, would
also require evidence that the violation altered the outcome. He said he is aware that this
protester would not be able to know whether the printed procedures were followed. He
said while he agrees about the first four allegations, he struggles with the fifth allegation.
Chair Carter said that the concept of probable cause in the civil versus criminal context is
less well known, but the State Board has provided guidance on evaluating probable cause
which was included in the agenda materials:
Probable cause is a commonsense, practical standard: Is the material
submitted by the protester sufficient for a reasonable and prudent
person to believe that the apparent result of the election was swayed by
election law violations, irregularity, or misconduct. It does not mean
than such a belief is necessarily correct or more likely true than false. A
probability of an outcome-determinative irregularity is sufficient.4
Member Bryan asked whether “probability” means more likely than not, or does it mean
possibility. Chair Carter said it means “possibility,” adding that a well-written protest
must include a forecast of the evidence to be successful. Member Hunter said that, in the
criminal context, the standard is “more likely than not,” which is not a high bar but does
require overwhelming evidence to meet the standard. She added that these allegations do
not meet that criteria when this protest lacks any specificity of the basis for the allegation
and is insufficient for the Board to consider further.
Hearing no further discussion, Chair Carter called for the vote on the motion that the
protest should be dismissed because it fails to establish probable cause that an
irregularity, violation of election law, or misconduct occurred. Motion carried
unanimously.
Chair Carter said the next item is consideration whether the protest establishes probable
cause that any irregularity affected the outcome of the election. The question seems
nonsensical since the Board has determined that no actual irregularity is alleged and
should be answered no. Chair Carter moved that the protest should be dismissed on the
basis that it does not establish probable cause that any irregularity affected the outcome
of the election, second by Secretary Miller. Motion carried unanimously and establishes
a separate basis for dismissal.
4 State Board of Elections, “Election Protest Procedures Guide,” last updated June 27, 2022. Emphasis in
the original.
Formatted: Justified, Indent: Left: 0.5", Right: 0.5"
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Highlight
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Highlight
DRAFT
Board Minutes 06/30/2022 Page | 18
Chair Carter said that brings back the tabled motion and moved to recall the tabled
motion for consideration, second by Member Hunter. Motion to recall carried
unanimously.
Chair Carter restated the main motion: doesthat the protest be dismissed because, even if
the longer deadline set forth sufficient allegation of irregularity that was properly and timely
filed, assuming that the protester was eligibleby N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-182.9 is found to
fileapply, the protest does not sufficiently allege an irregularity so as to avail herself of
the 48-hour post-canvass deadline, second by Secretary Miller. Motion carried
unanimously and establishes a separate basis for dismissal.
Chair Carter said the next step is to prepare an order and. He distributed a draft for the
Board members to review, which will need revision to reflect the Board’s decisions in the
preliminary hearing. Member Kemp asked if he may return to the dais, and Chair Carter
agreed. Member Bryan asked if the Board must review and vote on the order today, and
is the order the basis for any appeal, or is review de novo? Chair Carter asked the Board
members to review the draft for its accuracy in reflecting their decisions today. Deputy
County Attorney Burpeau said an appeal is likely de novo, but it is good to have an order
documenting this Board’s actions and rationale. He said he was impressed with the
Board’s thoroughness in their deliberations in the hearing and consideration of the
alternative contingencies.
Chair Carter noted that the meeting has already exceeded the allotted time and that some
Board members may need to leave. He suggested the members review the proposed
order now, identify necessary changes, and vote to approve it subject to those revisions.
He would like to have it officially entered by tomorrow for service on the protester.
[Chair Carter left the meeting, turning the chair over to Secretary Miller.] The Board
members reviewed the draft order and noted several revisions to be made. [Chair Carter
returned to the meeting and resumed the chair.]
Member Kemp asked Deputy County Attorney Burpeau whether having a pre-drafted
order indicates bias against the protest, suggesting a decision was already made before
the hearing. Deputy County Attorney Burpeau said the hearing indicated the Board was
meticulous in looking at all the different issues set forth and drawing conclusions. In
courts and other contexts, it is not unusual to have a draft order presented. He said he
does not see that as prejudicial action.
Member Kemp asked about the statutory provisions for appeal, NC Gen. Stat. §163-
182.11, where it allows for an amended protest or appeal to the State Board. His question
is whether this Board would hear an amended protest. Chair Carter said he is not sure.
Member Kemp said he understands the denial of the protest is due to the lack of specifics
in the support of the allegations in paragraph 6 of the protest. This presumes that any
protester has access to knowledge of those specifics and other challenges related to
rulings regarding this protest address whether the protester has standing to file the protest
and whether it was timely filed.
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
DRAFT
Board Minutes 06/30/2022 Page | 19
Would an amended protest come back before the County Board of Elections? Chair
Carter said he has not looked at that question and is not sure how an amended protest
would work. Director Hunter-Havens said an amended protest must also be filed by the
established deadlines.
Member Bryan said that the established deadlines are intended to allow public confidence
in the election results. He said it makes no sense to him to allow amendment of a
dismissed protest that has not passed procedural analysis. The same protester with the
same issues should not be permitted a second bite of the apple.
Chair Carter directed the Board’s attention back to the proposed order. Board members
pointed out several changes to be made. Chair Carter proposed that the Board vote to
approve the draft order as he will amend it based on Board-suggested revisions, send it to
Director Hunter-Havens for the Board to sign by July 5. Chair Carter moved approval of
the order, subject to technical corrections submitted to him within 18 hours by the Board
members, second by Secretary Miller. Motion carried unanimously.
3. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Carter moved to adjourn, second by Member Hunter. Motion carried unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 3:29 pm.
The next Board meeting is scheduled to be held on July 12, 2022, at 5:15 p.m. in the
Board of Elections office, Long Leaf Room, 1241A Military Cutoff Road, Wilmington,
NC.
APPROVED BY: RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY:
__________________________ __________________________________
DERRICK R. MILLER RAE HUNTER-HAVENS
SECRETARY ELECTIONS DIRECTOR
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
DRAFT
Board Minutes 10/04/2022 Page | 1
SPECIAL MEETING
New Hanover County Board of Elections
October 4, 2022
5:00 P.M.
ATTENDANCE
Members: Oliver Carter III, Chair
Derrick R. Miller, Secretary
Russ C. Bryan, Member
Lyana G. Hunter, Member
Bruce Kemp, Member
Staff: Rae Hunter-Havens, Executive Director
Caroline Dawkins, Deputy Director
Jenna Dahlgren, Elections Logistics Specialist
Joan Geiszler-Ludlum, Elections Administrative Technician
Beth Pugh, Elections Specialist
Jessica O’Neill, Elections Program and Outreach Coordinator
Election Assistants: Jane Saunders, Emily Fountain, Pam Green, Sharon
Smith, Sarah Vitt
Visitors: Lisa Wurtzbacher, Assistant County Manager
Public Attendees: Michael Werner; Susanne Werner, NHCDP; Cliff Brock, Sylvia
Brock, Lynn Dunn, Matthew Emborsky, Bob Gatewood, Julius
Rothlein, Carl Blankenship, Port City Daily
Virtual attendees: Beth Hansen, Sharon Smith, Tyler Daye, Denise Brown, one
telephone participant
1. MEETING OPENING
a. Call to Order
Chair Carter called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. The New Hanover County Board of
Elections meeting was held in the Board of Elections office, Long Leaf Room, 1241A
Military Cutoff Road, Wilmington, NC. All members were present. Chair Carter called
the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
b. Preliminary Announcements
Formatted: Font color: Auto
DRAFT
Board Minutes 10/04/2022 Page | 2
Chair Carter reminded the audience to silence their cell phones and that the meeting is
being recorded and live streamed over the internet.
c. Pledge of Allegiance
Chair Carter invited all in attendance to rise and recite the Pledge of Allegiance.
d. Approval of Agenda
Chair Carter noted two changes to the agenda: there is a 10-minute limit for the Public
Comment session and no General Discussion session during a Special meeting. Chair
Carter also called for tabling the minutes of 5/3/2022, 5/10/2022, and 9/13/2022 to the
October 11 meeting and moved adoption of the agenda as revised, second by Member
Kemp. Motion carried unanimously.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT AND QUESTION PERIOD
Chair Carter called on the public in-person attendees for their comments or questions,
limited to two minutes each with a total maximum time of twenty minutes. He reminded
speakers to yield to the Board Members or Director to respond.
Matt Emborsky made comments regarding (i) scheduling the final session of Logic and
Accuracy testing, and (ii) public review of the DS850 zero tape.
Seeing and hearing no other public attendees wishing to comment, Chair Carter closed
the public comment and question period.
3. OLD BUSINESS
a. Approval of Minutes of 4/12/22
Chair Carter moved to adopt the minutes of April 12, 2022 as revised, second by
Secretary Miller. Motion carried unanimously.
b. Member Kemp’s request to discuss SBE Numbered Memo 2020-25 regarding
the Board’s authority to delegate to staff the approval of absentee container-
envelopesapplications1 not individually reviewed by the Board
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 itself
while “Application” will generally refer to the form printed on the outside of the Envelope.
DRAFT
Board Minutes 10/04/2022 Page | 3
Member Hunter moved that the Board divide into two bipartisan teams to review the total
number of absentee ballotsApplications that are before the Board for review, second by
Secretary Miller. Chair Carter called for discussion, which followed.
Following discussion, Chair Carter said he would prefer not to review every absentee
Container-Return EnvelopeApplication and moved an amendment that the Board break
out into two bipartisan teams in order to review 20 percent of the absentee
ballotsApplications that staff recommends for approval and 100 percent of any
Applications that arethe staff deems questionable unusual or recommendedthat staff
recommends for disapproval, second by Secretary Miller. Chair Carter called for any
discussion, which followed.
Secretary Miller called the question on Chair Carter’s amendment to Member Hunter’s
motion. Chair Carter called the vote. Chair Carter, Secretary Miller and Member Hunter
voted aye, Members Bryan and Kemp voted nay. Motion to amend carried by majority.
Chair Carter called the vote on the main motion as amended. Secretary Miller asked for
clarification whether each team will review 20 percent, or each team will review 10
percent. Chair Carter said each team will review 10 percent.
Chair Carter called the vote. Chair Carter, Secretary Miller and Member Hunter voted
aye,; Members Bryan and Kemp voted nay. Motion carried by majority vote.
The Board began their review of the sample of Application/Container-Return Envelopes
at 6:00 p.m. by reviewing the ones that presented questions and require Board review and
approval.
4. STATUTORILY-REQUIRED BUSINESS
c. Review of Absentee Ballot Applications
The Board began their review of the sample of Application/Container-Return Envelopes
at 6:00 p.m. by reviewing the ones that presented questionsstaff deemed questionable or
unusual and requirethat therefore required Board review and approvalin addition to staff
review.
Director Hunter-Havens presented two Application/Container-Return
EnvelopesApplications that required cure certificationBoard approval because the voter
signed in the wrong place and require Board approval.but had subsequently submitted
cure certifications. She recommended approval of the cured Application.
Applications. Secretary Miller moved approval of the two Applications with cure
certifications, second by Member Hunter. Hearing no discussion, Chair Carter called the
vote. Chair Carter, Secretary Miller, and Members Bryan and Hunter voted aye; Member
Kemp did not vote. Motion carried by majority vote.
Formatted: Not Strikethrough
DRAFT
Board Minutes 10/04/2022 Page | 4
Director Hunter-Havens presented five Application/Container-Return Envelopes received
with incomplete seals or small tears in the envelope.or a partially unglued seals.
Guidance from the State Board of Elections (“SBE”) is that itminor damage is acceptable
as long as the ballot remains secure in the envelopeEnvelope. Chair Carter moved
approval of four and rejection of one with an opening sufficientthat was so far unglued
that the ballot was not fully secured, second by Secretary Miller. Hearing no discussion,
Chair Carter called the vote. Motion carried unanimously.
Director Hunter-Havens presented two Application/Container-Return
EnvelopesApplications received with witnesses’ names that are similar. Director Hunter-
Havens recommended approval. Secretary Miller moved approval, second by Member
Hunter. Chair Carter called the vote. Motion carried unanimously.
Director Hunter-Havens presented two Application/Container-Return
EnvelopesApplications where the notary signed in the wrong place, which does not
disqualify the Application but does require reporting to the Secretary of State. Based on
guidance from the State Board of Elections (SBE),, she recommendsrecommended
approval. Secretary Miller moved approval, second by Member Hunter. Chair Carter
called the vote. Motion carried unanimously.
Chair Carter said the Board would proceed withto review of the samplessample of
Applications by each team with following the process that the Board adopted earlier in
the meeting. The Board divided into two bipartisan teams, and each team randomly
selecting a precinctselected several precincts for review. of the Applications received
from voters in those precincts. The team of Chair Carter and Member Kemp selected to
review Precincts W03, WB, H11, and FP06 with a total of 44 ballots, and the team of
Secretary Miller and Member Bryan selected to review Precincts W30, H05, and M02
with a total of 44 ballots. Review began at 6:25 p.m.
The bipartisan teams completed their review at 6:47 p.m.
Chair Carter moved acceptance and approval of 386 Civilian absentee
ballotsApplications, second by Member Hunter. Hearing no discussion, Chair Carter
called the vote. Chair Carter, Secretary Miller, and Members Bryan and Hunter voted
aye; Member Kemp voted no. Motion carried by majority vote.
Chair Carter requested that the bipartisan duplication team of staff members proceed to
duplicate the 35 Civilian Overseas and 4 Military ballots. Scanning of Staff will open all
approved absentee-by-mail Envelopes and will remove and scan the ballots will take
placewithin them after the Board has concluded the remaining agenda business is
concludedon the agenda.
a. Chief Judge and Judge Appointments
Chair Carter reviewed and summarized the process for fillingappointing Chief Judges and
Judges to fill 14 vacancies in those offices. Party Chairs may nominate individuals for
appointment, and if those individuals reside in the chief judge and judge appointments.
DRAFT
Board Minutes 10/04/2022 Page | 5
precinct, the Chair is required to appoint them. In any event, the Chair must appoint
officials who are of the same political party as the vacating official, but when the
vacating official is not a member of either party, the Chair may appoint any qualified
person to fill the vacancy.
Except for the vacant Judge position in M07, for which a recommendationnomination is
pending, Chair Carter said he intends to make these appointments as recommended.,
pursuant NCN.C. Gen. Stat. §163-41(d).
CF05 Chief Judge Arlene Lawson (D)
FP06 Chief Judge Philip White (D)
Judge Avery Bevin (R)
FP08 Judge Frances Bullard (R)
H04 Chief Judge Julian Keith (D)
H10 Chief Judge Lori Apple (R) replacing (U)
H12 Judge James Broder (R)
W03 Judge Dana Hamerski (D)
W08 Judge Richard Wills (R)
W13 Judge Amanda Sans (R)
Judge Jim Wheeler (D)
W17 Judge Margaret Marie Ashworth (D)
W18 Judge Trevor Love (R)
Judge Anne Randall (D)
A confirmingwritten Order Appointing Precinct Officials will follow.
b. Precinct Assistant Appointments
Chair Carter said this Board has delegated assignmentappointment of resident precinct
assistantsPrecinct Assistants to the Director by a resolution adopted at the September 13
meeting and called for a report
on the process to date.
Deputy Director Dawkins presented two lists showing Phase I and Phase II of the
statutory precinct official assignment process for appointing Precinct Officials as
interpreted by the Board. The Phase I list is based on precinct of residence and party
parity only, leaving a large number of openings. The Phase II list adds the remaining
precinct residents, shown in bold, who were not nominated by a party chair,
demonstrating how difficult it is to achieve one-to-one party parity in somemany
precincts. The remaining slots will be addressed in Phase III by assigningappointing non-
resident transfer officials to fill out the positions as the statute allows.
Chair Carter moved approval ofto appoint the individuals listed in the Phase II report,
second by Secretary Miller, and called for Board discussion. Following discussion, Chair
Carter moved to table this discussion and, proceed with scanning the absentee ballots,
DRAFT
Board Minutes 10/04/2022 Page | 6
and return to this discussion later. Member Hunter said she needs to leave soon. Chair
Carter’s motion to table was not seconded, and he withdrew the motion to table.
Secretary Miller moved to approveappoint the entire Phase II list of precinct official
assignmentsPrecinct Assistants, second by Member Hunter. Hearing no further
discussion, Chair Carter called the vote. Chair Carter, Secretary Miller, and Members
Hunter and Bryan voted aye; Member Kemp voted no. Motion failed due to lack of
unanimity.
Secretary Miller moved to authorize the staff to proceed with opening the approved
Envelopes and removing and scanning the approved absentee ballots inside of them,
second by Member Hunter. Hearing no discussion, Chair Carter called the vote. Motion
carried unanimously.
Chair Carter moved to authorize the bipartisan duplication team to duplicate the approved
39 Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) ballots for
scanning, second by Member Bryan. Hearing no discussion, Chair Carter called the vote.
Motion carried unanimously. [Did we do this twice? See above.]
Scanning began at 7:45 p.m. Scanning completed at 9:49p49 p.m.
Chair Carter called the meeting back to order, concluding the review and scanning of
absentee ballots. He called the Board to return to the earlier matter of assigning precinct
assistants.appointing Precinct Assistants. On further review, about half of the precincts
have achieved parity and he would like to assignappoint those precinct officials.Precinct
Assistants. In many of the remaining precincts, the proposed assignmentsappointments
are within one of strict parity and he hoped the Board would agree to makeappoint those
assignmentsAssistants as well. He called for any questions or discussion.
Following questions and discussion,
Chair Carter moved to approveappoint the assignmentsrecommended Precinct Assistants
for these precincts with exact parity: CF02, CF05, FP06, FP07, FP08, H02, H04, H06,
H08, H12, M04, M07, W16, W25, W28, W30, second by Member Bryan. Chair Carter
called for any discussion. Member Kemp said he would also consider approving the
assignmentsappointments for CF06, FP04, H13,
M02, M06, W15, W17, W21, W24, W31, W33, and WB. Chair Carter said he would
accept these as an amendment to his motion. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Carter
called the vote. Motion carried unanimously.
Chair Carter moved approvalappointment of the two unaffiliated officialsPrecinct
Assistants, Ray and Richards, for CF01. Member Kemp objected because it would
require removing two Democrats to appoint two additional Republicans to achieve parity.
He said approving the unaffiliated officialsPrecinct Assistants would tie the Board’s
hands and prevent achieving parity. Chair Carter withdrew the motion.
Formatted: Highlight
DRAFT
Board Minutes 10/04/2022 Page | 7
Chair Carter moved approvalappointment of officials Dutka (R), Spence (D), Demeyer
(U), and Billeter (U) as Precinct Assistants in H05. Secretary Miller objected for the
same reason. Chair Carter withdrew the motion.
5. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Carter moved that the meeting be adjourned, second by Member Kemp. Motion
carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m.
The next Board meeting is scheduled to be held on October 11, 2022, at 5:00 p.m. in the
Board of Elections office, Long Leaf Room, 1241A Military Cutoff Road, Wilmington,
NC.
APPROVED BY: RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY:
__________________________ __________________________________
DERRICK R. MILLER RAE HUNTER-HAVENS
SECRETARY ELECTIONS DIRECTOR
DRAFT
Board Meeting 10/11/2022 Page | 1
SPECIAL MEETING
New Hanover County Board of Elections
October 11, 2022
5:00 P.M.
ATTENDANCE
Members: Oliver Carter III, Chair
Derrick R. Miller, Secretary
Russ C. Bryan, Member
Lyana G. Hunter, Member
Bruce Kemp, Member
Staff: Rae Hunter-Havens, Executive Director
Caroline Dawkins, Deputy Director
Jenna Dahlgren, Elections Logistics Specialist
Noelle Powers, Elections Database and Systems Specialist
Joan Geiszler-Ludlum, Elections Administrative Technician
Election Assistants: Pam Green, Cher Pridgen, Sarah Vitt, Sharon Smith,
Emily Fountain, Jane Saunders
Visitors: Kemp Burpeau, Deputy County Attorney
Public Attendees: Matt Emborsky, NHC GOP; Nichole Kingston; Diane Zaryki; Julius
Rothlein, NHC GOP; Chad Whitaker, NHC GOP; Carl
Blankenship, Port City Daily; Lynn Dunn; Grace Vitaglione,
WHQR; Auley Crouch.
Virtual attendees: Jennah Bosch; Nunya; Jessica O’Neill; Tyler Daye; Jane Saunders; S
(Guest); Denise Brown; Gina Herring; 910-264-2114.
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
called the meeting to order at 5:01 p.m., with Chair Carter, Secretary Miller, and Member
Kemp present. Chair Carter announced that Member Hunter was on her way and
Member Bryan would be coming in about an hour. A bipartisan quorum of the Board
was present. 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.
b. Preliminary Announcements
DRAFT
Board Meeting 10/11/2022 Page | 2
Chair Carter reminded the audience to silence their cell phones and that the meeting is
being recorded and live streamed over 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 approval of the agenda as submitted, second by Chair Carter.
Secretary Miller moved to amend the order of business to consider Old Business after
Statutorily-Required Business and New Business, second by Chair Carter. Motion to
amend carried unanimously. Member Kemp moved to amend the agenda by adding
consideration of authorizing staff to begin duplication of UOCAVA ballots during the
meeting under New Business, second by Chair Carter. Motion carried unanimously.
Hearing no further discussion, Chair Carter called for the vote on the agenda as amended.
Motion carried unanimously.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT AND QUESTION PERIOD
Chair Carter called on the public in-person attendees for their comments or questions,
limited to two minutes each with a total maximum time of twenty minutes. He reminded
speakers to yield to the Board Members or Director to respond.
Chair Carter acknowledged receiving emailed comments from the New Hanover County
Republican Party regarding (i) the approval process for absentee ballotAbsentee Ballot
Applications/Container-Return Envelopes1 and (ii) observer use of the staff door at the
Northeast Library One Stop site.
Julius Rothlein reported on his findings from his review of the Container-Return
EnvelopesApplications approved to date regarding the absence of postmarks on some
returned envelopesEnvelopes.
Discussion followed regarding Mr. Rothlein’s email comments questioning the Board’s
acceptanceapproval of two absentee ballotsApplications, which he asked to be considered
as a voter challenge. Chair Carter said that an email is not a valid voter challenge form,
which must be submitted using the prescribed form, available on the Board’s website.
Director Hunter-Havens said the Board can only reconsider its decision to approve an
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 itself
while “Application” will generally refer to the form printed on the outside of the Envelope.
DRAFT
Board Meeting 10/11/2022 Page | 3
absentee ballotApplication in the context of a valid voter challenge. ThisMr. Rothlein’s
purported challenge is based on signature verificationa comparison of signatures, which
is not a statutory basis for a voter challenge. The voter’s signature is attested by the two
witnesses in addition to the voter’s attestation.
[Member Hunter arrived at 5:13 p.m.]
Seeing and hearing no other public attendees wishing to comment, Chair Carter closed
the public comment and question period.
3. STATUTORILY-REQUIRED BUSINESS
Chair Carter moved to authorize the bipartisan team to duplicate the UOCAVA ballots
outside this meeting in an adjacent room, second by Secretary Miller. Member Kemp
asked if this will be an on-going directive. Chair Carter said that would be addressed
later with his proposed resolution. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Carter called the
vote. Motion carried unanimously.
a. Chief Judge and Judge Appointments and Assignments of Chief Judges and
Judges
Chair Carter said, when vacancies arise in chief judgethe offices of Chief Judge and
judge positionsJudge, the chairChair is charged with making appointments to certainfill
the vacancies. He announced those appointments during the October 4 meeting and
circulated an Order formalizing those appointments for the Board’s information.
Chair Carter presented his an additional Order delegating the chair’s authority by which
he delegated to the Director his authority as Chair to fill vacancies among precinct
officialsPrecinct Officials, meaning chief judges, judgesChief Judges, Judges, and
assistants should thosePrecinct Assistants in the event such vacancies arise, through the
conclusion of the 2022 General Election and subject to the same requirements that apply
to the chair’s appointments made by the Chair. He asked that the Order be received for
the record.
Chair Carter said circumstances arise where an officiala Precinct Official is unable to
serve in a particular election but does not intend to resign from the position. In those
cases, the Director makes temporary assignments which expire at the conclusion of that
election. He called on Deputy Director Dawkins to present the list of proposed
temporary assignments to date for the 2022 General Election.
Deputy Director Dawkins said there are four chief judgesChief Judges who are unable to
serve in this election, and she presented these names of officials recommendedthe
individuals whom the staff recommends to fill thetemporarily cover these positions:
Chief Judge Temporary Assignments
CF02 Eileen Jezercak (R) replacing (D)
FP07 Patrick Sorrenti (U) replacing (D)
DRAFT
Board Meeting 10/11/2022 Page | 4
H05 Terence Reilly (D) replacing (U)
W31 Steven Unger (D) replacing (D)
Deputy Director Dawkins said, despite staff’s best efforts to achieve party-to-party parity
among willing officials, they were not always successful. She said all four precincts have
bipartisan representation, one is a resident of the precinct, three are non-resident
transfers.
Following discussion, Chair Carter moved ratification of the four chief judgeChief Judge
administrative assignments as presented, second by Member Hunter. Hearing no further
discussion, Chair Carter called for the vote. Motion carried unanimously.
b. Appointments and Assignments of Precinct Assistant Appointments
Chair Carter reviewed the procedure set out in NCN.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-42 to appoint
precinct assistants.by which the Board appoints Precinct Assistants. This Board has
delegated to the Director, by Resolution adopted September 13, 2022, the authority to
appoint resident precinct assistantsPrecinct Assistants nominated by the party chairsParty
Chairs. If the Director is not able to fill all positions with resident officials nominated by
the party chairsParty Chairs, then the Board, by unanimous vote of all the members, may
appoint precinct residents. of the precinct who were not recommended by the Part
Chairs.
Those appointments were approved in the last meeting, but some positions remain where
there are insufficient officials nominated by the party chairs to achieve parity. Chair
Carter said he sent a list of resident precinct official namesPrecinct Officials who are in
the database to the county party chairsParty Chairs and asked the chairsChairs to
nominate those individuals for appointment. The party chairsParty Chairs made those
nominations, allowing the Board to make those appointments by majority vote. See
AttachmentThe nominations made by the Party Chairs are attached as Exhibit A. That
may still leave some positions to fill without party chair nominations requiringbe filled
by individuals who were not nominated by the Party Chairs, and those appointments will
require a unanimous vote of the Board.
Deputy Director Dawkins reviewed the factors staff considers when assigning precinct
officials: Precinct Officials: travel distance for the officialOfficial; experience and skill
levels; precinct officiallevel; Precinct Official preferences about working the 15-hour day
required on Election Day,; location of assignment, and; availability to work; difficulty of
replacing the reassigned official; and avoiding bumping an assigned official. She
reviewed specific concerns with some of the party-nominated officials and the locations
at which they were nominated to serve.
Chair Carter suggested acting on the list from the Democratic Party chairChair first, then
on the list from the Republican Party Chair where there is clarity. He said the
assistantsPrecinct Assistants recommended by the Democratic Party chairChair reside in
the precincts where they are recommended to serve, requiring and therefore they may be
appointed by a majority vote. of the Board. Some of the namesindividuals recommended
by the Republican Party chairChair reside in the precinct, for which they are
Formatted: Not Strikethrough
Formatted: Font: Bold, Not Italic, Underline
DRAFT
Board Meeting 10/11/2022 Page | 5
recommended, but some do not, and he suggested considering those nine
appointmentsrecommendations individually.
Chair Carter moved appointment ofto appoint the Democratic Party chair’sChair’s
nominees to serve in the precincts where they reside, listed in AttachmentExhibit A, for
the 2022 General Election, second by Secretary Miller. Chair Carter called for any
discussion on the motion.
Member Kemp said he has concerns that the party-parity requirements of §163-42(a) are
not met by that list of nominees. He said the motion to approve the list is inappropriate
without equal party parity.numbers of Precinct Assistants from each party in each
precinct.
Chair Carter said these appointments will result in a lack of perfect parity in about 15
precincts. He said, § that § 163-42(b) recognizes that perfect parity is not always
possible: “In making its appointments, the county board shall assure, wherever possible,
that no precinct has precinct officials all of whom are registered with the same party.”
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-42(b) (emphasis added).
Secretary Miller called the question, second by Chair Carter. Motion to call the question
carried unanimously. Chair Carter called for the vote on the main motion to approve the
Democratic Party chair’sChair’s nominees to serve in the precincts where they reside, as
listed in AttachmentExhibit A. Chair Carter, Secretary Miller, and Member Hunter
voted aye; Member Kemp voted nay. Motion carried by majority.
Chair Carter called on Deputy Director Dawkins to review the list of nominated
judgesrecommendations for Judges and assistantsAssistants received from the county
Republican Party chairChair. See AttachmentExhibit B.
Discussion followed, identifying these precincts as having no Republican precinct
officials: Precinct Assistants: CF01, FP03, H01, and H10. Secretary Miller said those
precincts all have at least one Republican precinct official.Precinct Official. Member
Hunter said only W32 has no Republican precinct officialsPrecinct Officials, and that will
be addressed by the transfer of Carl Samet to W32 as proposed fromby the Republicans
list of nominees. submitted by the Republican Party Chair. Chair Carter said all the
names submitted by the Republican party chairParty Chair are being appointed, but even
with that there will not be perfect parity.
Deputy Director Dawkins said assigningappointing Reuel Sample to H04 where there is
no opening requires bumping someone already assignedappointed; and
assigningappointing Cliff Brock, who has not agreed to serve as a judgeJudge, to that
position in W15 requires bumping someone already assignedappointed. Chair Carter said
he would hold off on those two assignmentsappointments.
Chair Carter moved to appoint Eileen Patterson as a judgeJudge in M04 and Katie Gates
as a judgeJudge in M06, second by Secretary Miller. Motion carried unanimously.
Formatted: Font: Bold, Underline
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Italic
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: Bold, Underline
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Not Italic
Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Bold, Not Italic, Underline
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font color: Black
Formatted: Font color: Black
DRAFT
Board Meeting 10/11/2022 Page | 6
After discussion of the county Republican Party Chair’s nominations of Cliff Brock, Carl
Samet, and Shanda West, Chair Carter suggested holding off on these transfers until staff
can contact them to confirm their willingness to serve in the offices for which they have
been nominated.
Chair Carter moved to appoint Denice Fipps as precinct assistantPrecinct Assistant in
W21, second by Secretary Miller. Motion carried unanimously.
Chair Carter said Frank Lopez is already assigned in CF06 and no further action is
needed.
Chair Carter moved to appoint Yvonne Spencer as assistanta Precinct Assistant in WB,
second by Member Hunter. Motion carried unanimously.
Chair Carter moved to appoint Reuel Sample as assistanta Precinct Assistant in H04,
second by Secretary Miller. Motion carried unanimously.
Chair Carter thanked Director Hunter-Havens and Deputy Director Dawkins, the party
chairsParty Chairs and vice-chairsVice-Chairs for their work in staffing the precinct
polling places for Election Day precincts.
c. Review of Absentee Ballot Applications
Chair Carter said 255 absentee-by-mail ballotsApplications have been received since the
Board’s last meeting, including 238 domestic civilian,13 overseas civilian, and 4 military
ballots, all of which are
recommended for approval. He called on Director Hunter-Havens to present any that
present special circumstances that require Board approval and any that have special
issues that the staff believes should be brought to the Board’s attention.
Director Hunter-Havens presented 6 Container-Return Envelopes received with small
tears in the envelopeEnvelope, including 1 with a date stamp correction. Small tears or
the use of tape to seal the Container-Return Envelope are not disqualifying deficiencies
as long as there is no evidence that the marked ballot could behave been removed. after
the envelope was sealed. She circulated these to the Board who were present for their
inspection.. Member Kemp declined to review these Container-Return Envelopes.
Director Hunter-Havens presented 5 Container-Return EnvelopeEnvelopes returned in
person. She explained that the front desk ran out of the Absentee Ballot In-Person Return
Log formforms printed on the assignedbrown paper color, distinguishing a Container-
Return Envelope from a cured deficiency. The attached Absentee Ballot Return Log is,
so they temporarily used forms printed on pink paper2. In addition, the Director
presented 1 Container-Return EnvelopeApplication with a blurred notary seal that was
nonetheless legible. The Board members who were present reviewed these Container-
Return EnvelopesApplications.
2 The brown Log Forms are used for Envelopes returned in person while the pink Log Forms are used for
Applications with a cured deficiency.
DRAFT
Board Meeting 10/11/2022 Page | 7
[Member Hunter left the meeting at 6:55 p.m.]
Director Hunter-Havens presented 2 Container-Return Envelopes received by mail with
no markings by the US Postal Service (USPS), no postage, no bar code, but were
delivered with other mail. The Director said this issue was encountered in 2020 as well.
The Board members who were present reviewed these Container-Return Envelopes.
Chair Carter verified with the Director that she recommends approval of thethese 14
special circumstance Container-Return Envelopes and Applications with special
circumstances.
Chair Carter moved that the Board review a random sample of 20%, or 51, of the 255
Applications/Container-Return Envelopes, second by Secretary Miller. Chair Carter
called for any discussion.
Member Kemp asked if the plan is to open and scan the ballots at the same time as review
is happening. He proposed to do that while review is occurring, and to review all 255, a
precinct Applications at athe same time, simultaneously. as the staff opens the Envelopes
and removes and scans the ballots. Chair Carter said he had two reservations about that
approach. Chair Carter cited NCN.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-234(5) which he read aloud:
(5) The county board of elections may employ such assistants as deemed necessary
to count the absentee ballots, but each board member present shall be responsible for
and observe and supervise the opening and tallying of the ballots.
N.C. Gen. Stat § 163-234(5) (emphasis added).
[Member Hunter returned to the meeting at 7:08 p.m.]
Chair Carter said he had not noticed this provision before, but it suggests to him that
instead of using the scanning process as downtime, it calls for the Board members
toMembers should pay close attention to the staff while they are opening the Envelopes
and removing and scanning processthe ballots. He said his second concern with
simultaneous review and scanning is practical: the noise from the DS850 is distracting.
Director Hunter-Havens said she can have additional staff help out in order to expedite
removing the ballots for scanning to help shorten the scanning time.
Hearing no further discussion, Chair Carter called for the vote on the motion. Chair
Carter, Secretary Miller, and Member Hunter voted aye; Member Kemp voted nay.
The Board selected for review precincts M03 (17), FP04 (9), H11 (10), W21 (14), and
W33 (9), for a total of 59 Applications, in addition to the 14 special circumstance
Container Return Envelopes and Applications with special circumstances that the Board
has already reviewed.
Member Kemp asked how many times staff have reviewed the Applications?. Director
Hunter-Havens said that staff make at least two orand sometimes three passes on each
Application/ Container-Return Envelope: Elections Specialist Beth Pugh makes a first
review and preliminary recommendation, and. If there are any Applications with a
Formatted: Font: Italic
Formatted: Font: Italic
DRAFT
Board Meeting 10/11/2022 Page | 8
curable deficiency, she sends notice to the voter by letter and contacts the voter by letter
and phone and/or email of any with a curable deficiency. A bipartisan team audits the list
for voter history and correct precinct assignment. A third pass may also occur as needed.
[Chair Carter and Member Kemp left the meeting at 7:13 p.m.]
Board review began at 7:14 p.m.
[Member Kemp returned at 7:15 p.m. Chair Carter returned at 7:17 p.m. Secretary
Miller left the meeting at 7:20 p.m.., and Chair Carter took his place in the review.
Secretary Miller returned to the meeting at 7:25 p.m. Member Hunter left the meeting at
7:34 p.m.]
Chair Carter reconvenedcalled the meeting back to order at 7:36 p.m. He reported that the
Board had completed its review of the 20% sample of 20% of the
Applications/Container-Return Envelopes, finding no issues tothat would prevent
approval as staff has recommended.
Chair Carter moved to approve and accept 238 Civiliandomestic civilian absentee-by-
mail ballots, second by Secretary Miller. [Member Bryan arrived at the meeting at 7:37
p.m.] Chair Carter called for any discussion.
Member Kemp asked about Board review of the duplicated UOCAVA (Overseas and
Military) ballots 3. Chair Carter said those would be reviewed after the vote on the
motion on the floor and after authorizing the staff to begin the preparatory steps of
opening the Envelopes and removing and scanning of the Civilian ballots therein.
Hearing no further discussion, Chair Carter called for the vote. Chair Carter and
Secretary Miller voted aye; Member Kemp voted nay; Member Bryan abstained as he
was not present for the review. [Member Hunter returned to the meeting at 7:38 p.m.]
In order to establish approval by a majority of all members of the Board, Chair Carter
called for a second vote on the motion after Member Hunter returned, to establish
approval by a majority of all members of the Board. Chair Carter, Secretary Miller, and
Member Hunter voted aye; Member Kemp voted nay; Member Bryan abstained. Motion
carried by majority. Chair Carter authorized the Director to begin the preparatory steps
forof opening the Envelopes and removing and scanning the approved Civilian absentee-
by-mail ballots therein.
The Board began their review of the duplicated UOCAVA (Overseas and Military)
ballots at 7:40 p.m. Chair Carter reminded the Board of the requirements of
NCrequirement set forth in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-234(5) that the Board observe and
supervise the opening and tallying of the ballots. Scanning began at 7:55 p.m.
3 The Uniformed and Overseas Voter Absentee Voting Act (“UOCAVA”) makes special provisions for
absentee voting by members of the armed services and civilians who are overseas during an election.
Ballots cast pursuant to this Act are frequently referred to as UOCAVA ballots.
DRAFT
Board Meeting 10/11/2022 Page | 9
Elections Specialist Pugh presented the Board with an issue that arose upon opening two
Envelopes and removing the ballots from them. It appeared that two voters in the same
household where the voters mixed up theplaced their ballots and returned them in each
other’s Container-Return Envelopes. Chair Carter moved to accept them, second by
Member Hunter. Motion carried unanimously.
Chair Carter said the Board members reviewed a machine rejected ballot and authorized
its duplication. The Board will review the duplicated ballot for accuracy before scanning.
Chair Carter moved approval of 17 Overseas and MilitaryUOCAVA ballots that were
duplicated by staff and reviewed by the Board, second by Member Hunter. Motion
carried unanimously.
Scanning concluded at 8:49 p.m. Director Hunter-Havens confirmed that the Board has
approved 255 absentee-by-mail ballots. Scanning of 255 absentee-by-mail ballots is
completed. The Accordingly, the Board membersMembers signed the Weekly Absentee
Ballot Certification accordinglyForm.
Chair Carter returnedcalled the meeting back to order to consider his draft Resolution
setting out this Board’s policy for review ofreviewing absentee-by-mail
Applications/Container-Return Envelopes. and UOCAVA ballots. In summary, the
Resolution authorizes the Director to:
1. To duplicate UOCAVA ballots prior to Board review and outside of the Board’s
presence. and prior to Board review;
2. To review and sort absentee ballot Applications Envelopes prior to Board review.;
and
3. To open Once Applications are approved applications, to open the Envelopes and
scan the ballots in them.
Chair Carter moved adoption of the resolutionResolution, second by Member Hunter.
Chair Carter called for any discussion.
In response to a question from Secretary Miller, Chair Carter said the Board is codifying
Board practice with the addition of authorizing duplication of the UOCAVA ballots
before the meeting, instead of during the meeting, as has been done previously.
In response to a question from Member Bryan, Chair Carter said the sampling process for
review of absentee Applications/Container-Return Envelopes will be a meeting-to-
meeting decision of the Board, depending on the volume to be reviewed, and will be in
effect for the remainder of this election cycle, which coincides with the remainder of this
Board’s term.
Hearing no further discussion, Chair Carter called for the vote on the motion. Motion to
adopt the resolutionResolution carried unanimously.
Formatted: Space Before: 0 pt, After: 0 pt
DRAFT
Board Meeting 10/11/2022 Page | 10
4. NEW BUSINESS
a. Resolution to Require Certain Precinct Officials to Appear and Show Cause
Why They Should Not Be Removed
Chair Carter said he requested consideration of this resolutionResolution. He said the
names of the
officials would be better left to a closed session. Two officials were appointed in August
2021 to serve as chief judgesChief Judges or judges in August 2021, and Judges, but they
have not been able to serve in any election since their appointment. One official did not
complete the required training and therefore did not qualify to serve in the role. Chair
Carter said this step is undertaken as authorized in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-33, which sets
out the duties of the County Board of Elections.
after their appointment. One official did not complete the required training and did not
qualify to serve in the role. Chair Carter said this step is undertaken as authorized in NC
Gen. Stat. §163-33, which sets out the county board of elections duties and
responsibilities.
Chair Carter said the concern here is not incompetency or fraud. Two officials failed to
discharge the duties of office, and one failed to qualify within the time prescribed by law.
He said the resolutionResolution asks the Director and staff to notify these three
individuals that thisthe Board intends to conduct a hearing at the November 1 Board
meeting to remove them from office if they have not resigned by then. The individual
will have the right to appear and offer testimony or evidence as to why they should not be
removed.
Chair Carter moved adoption of the resolution, second by Secretary Miller. Chair Carter
called for any discussion.
Secretary Miller asked what the practical effect of the resolution would be, given that
these officials’ terms will expire at the end of this calendar year? Chair Carter said the
terms will expire in August 2023. Secretary Miller added that there are no scheduled
elections before these terms will expire. He said then these officials would not carry-
over, is that the real effect?
Chair Carter agreed they would not carry-over, butthat if the official resigned or was
removed, they would no longer hold the office and would not carry- over. He said his
initial purpose in presenting the resolution is his feeling that when someone signs up for a
public office and finds they are not able to fulfill the duties, the correct action is to resign.
The same applies for someone who fails to complete the required training. His proposed
letter suggests they sign up as precinct assistantsPrecinct Assistants since the term for
that office is for that election only.
Member Kemp said NCN.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-41(a) states that chief judgethe terms of
Chief Judges and judge appointmentsJudges “continue for two years from the specified
date of appointment and until their successors are appointed and qualified….”,…”,
which, he said, means that the predecessor appointee holds the appointment because these
DRAFT
Board Meeting 10/11/2022 Page | 11
appointees did not qualify. He said it is a moot point for the person who did not complete
the training and never qualified.
Chair Carter said that is an interesting point, and based on that reading of the statute, the
appointed official who did not complete the training did not become a judgeJudge. He
said the Board, the Director and staff, and the appointeeappointees have considered that
the appointment becomes effective when made, not when the additional requirements of
on-boarding and training are completed. Once the hearing is completed and the official is
removed, it will eliminate any question whether that prior appointee has held over.
Member Kemp asked if the Chair intends to appoint a replacement before August 2023?.
Chair Carter said, assuming the person is removed after hearing on November 1, he
would consider filling the vacancy with the person the Director has administratively
assigned. He assured that, in any case, there will be consultation with the relevant party
chairsParty Chairs. He disclosed that these appointees are members of the Democratic
Party.
Member Bryan said one effect is to put officials on notice that they need to respond when
staff contacts them, or the Board may remove them. Chair Carter said his intent is to
strike a balance between upholding the appropriate standards and respecting individuals
who clearly wanted to serve and felt they were able to serve.
Deputy Director Dawkins said that November 1 is after the completion of all scheduled
Election Day training in October. for Election Officials who will serve on Election Day.
If appointments are made after that, there will be no time to provide chief judge or judge
training. The appointee will be appointed to a role for which they have had no training.
She has already identified persons to be administratively assigned to these positions.
These three positions were already identified to the party chair for their nomination. If
the party chair has not already acted on those positions, is it not appropriate to proceed
with administrative assignments as planned?
Chair Carter said staff should contact the Democratic Party chairChair, explain the
situation, give notice of whom staff is considering for that position, and ask the
chairChair for his recommendationrecommendations for the positions. He said the Board
cannot remove them tonight without giving them time to respond and appear, but the staff
should continue to follow through as planned.
Hearing no further discussion, Chair Carter called for the vote on the
resolutionResolution as presented. Motion to adopt the resolutionResolution carried
unanimously.
5. OLD BUSINESS
a. Approval of Minutes of 5/3/2022, 5/10/2022, and 9/13/2022
Chair Carter called the Board’s attention to some revisions he has circulated in the past
few days. He moved to approve these minutes as amended, second by Secretary Miller.
Chair Carter called for any discussion.
DRAFT
Board Meeting 10/11/2022 Page | 12
In the May 3 minutes, last page, first paragraph, Member Kemp said he would like § 163-
45(c) quoted in its entirety to emphasize the obligations of the chief judgeChief Judges
and judgesJudges to observersObservers, and so moved to amend the motion to approve
the minutes, second by Chair Carter. Hearing no discussion of the motion as amended,
Chair Carter called the vote. Motion to amend the motion carried unanimously. Chair
Carter called for any further discussion of the main motion.
In the September 12 minutes, page 6, first paragraph after the bullet points, Member
Kemp asked for clarification that the delegation to the Director to appoint precinct
assistantsPrecinct Assistants applies to assistantsAssistants who are residents of the
precinct and nominated by the party chairsParty Chairs. Chair Carter suggested to
reviserevising the second sentence of the paragraph to read, “To that end, Chair Carter
reviewed a resolution he has drafted delegating to the Director the authority to appoint
precinct assistantsPrecinct Assistants recommended by the party chairParty Chairs to
serve in their precinct of residence, and called for any discussion.” Member Kemp
moved to amend the motion to approve the minutes with Chair Carter’s language, second
by Chair Carter. Hearing no further discussion of the amendment to the motion, Chair
Carter called the vote. Motion carried unanimously.
Hearing no further discussion of the motion to approve the minutes as amended, Chair
Carter called the vote. Motion carried unanimously.
b. Member Bryan’s requestRequest to discussDiscuss the door usage by
observersDoor to be Used Observers at the Northeast Library polling
placeEarly Voting Site and Polling Place
Chair Carter called on Member Bryan to discuss this issue.
Member Bryan moved to direct the staff to find a configuration for the One Stop
siteEarly Voting Site and precinctPrecinct Polling Place at the Northeast Library that
balances voter privacy while voting, allows the chief judge and staffElection Officials to
perform their duties unimpeded, and allows the observerObservers to use the staff door
for observation of curbside voting, second by Member Kemp. Chair Carter called for
discussion of the motion.
Member Kemp said configuration of the polling place can be subject to the specific legal
restrictions of § 163-45(c) and accommodate the observersObservers. The same
restrictions to afford voter privacy should apply to both precinct staffElection Officials
and observersObservers. Chair Carter said his viewunderstanding is that observer use of
the staff door by Observers is restricted in order to prevent the Observers from impeding
the precinct staffmovement of Election Officials, not due to concerns about ballot
privacy, and observersthat the use of the public exit by Observers is restricted in order to
prevent Observers from passing too close to the DS200, not a matter of ballot privacy.
Chair Carter called on Director Hunter-Havens for her comments.
Director Hunter-Havens said this polling site has three doors, which requiresrequire clear
pathways to all three for safety reasons. In previous elections, curbside voting was set up
DRAFT
Board Meeting 10/11/2022 Page | 13
in the front, using the door where the DS200 is now located for access. The Northeast
Library site processed 70,695 voters during 2016 One Stop Early Voting, of which 2,332
[these numbers seem too high] or 3.4% voted curbside. Responding to libraryIn 2020,
NHC Library staff raised concerns withabout safe pedestrian access to the library main
entrance and COVID of the library. Also in 2020, Election Officials had to contend with
special concerns presented by the COVID pandemic. For these reasons, curbside was
moved to the west side of the building in 2020, and the access door for Election Officials
conducting curbside voting accordingly changed to the side staff door. on the west side
of the building.
Additional guidance from the State Board reminds staff to be mindful of
observersObservers coming into the voting booth area. The prohibition of
observersObservers potentially seeing someone marking their ballot does not apply to
precinct officialsElection Officials who have official reasons to be in the voting booth
area, although precinct officialsElection Officials are also asked to be mindful and
respectful of voter privacy inwhen casting their ballot.
Observers using the door by the DS200 also affects the voters’ sense of the privacy of
their ballot when they are inserting it into the DS200. That door is a single door access,
in contrast to the main entrance from the lobby, which is a double door. Moving the
DS200 farther down the west wall, as has been suggested, moves the greeter tending the
DS200 away from the door. This greeter is also tasked with keeping an eye on the
electioneers out front, losing line of sight since this is the only door with a view of the
parking lot, shifting that task back on the chief judge. Chief Judge or Site Lead.
The latest guidance received from the State Board is that observersObservers are not
permitted to use a staff-only exit, meaning the public does not enter or exit the door. In
the current layout, the public entrance comes off the library lobby and the public exit
door goes out by the DS200, allowing the observerObserver to use the same doors.
Observers can locate outside, adjacent to the curbside voting area. While we want
observersObservers to have the access they are permitted by law, our priority and primary
mission, as election officialsElection Officials, is serving the voters in the most efficient
way possible and with the highest level of customer service we can provide.
Member Hunter said she is hearing the same arguments discussed previously and called
the question, second by Secretary Miller. Member Kemp interrupted with a motion to
adjourn, which Chair Carter ruled out of order. Chair Carter called the vote on the
motion to call the question. Secretary Miller and Member Hunter voted aye; Chair
Carter, Members Bryan and Kemp voted nay. Motion to call the question was defeated
for lack of a majority.
Member Kemp said the North Carolina Rules Review Commission rejected the
SBE’sState Board’s attempt to turn a pandemic-related emergency rule into a permanent
rule. While he sees the need to prevent the public from going out the staff door, he sees
no reason why an observerObserver cannot follow the curbside coordinatorCurbside
Coordinator out that door and avoid having to make up to four trips around the building
per vehicle by using the main entrance as currently required. The statute requires the
Formatted: Highlight
DRAFT
Board Meeting 10/11/2022 Page | 14
chief judgeChief Judge and judgesJudges to allow observersObservers to observe what
they want to observe.
Chair Carter said the statute does not requiremake Observers omniscient observers. Each
political party is permitted to appoint two observersObservers per polling place. or early
voting site. It is physically impossible for them to observe everything happening in the
polling place or early voting site. If the concern is observing curbside voting, the answer
is to station someone near the designated curbside area for that purpose, which means
that observerObserver is not able to observe other processes. Chair Carter said, as to the
Rules Review Commission, the state-wide rule proposed by the SBE was rejected, so
there is no single rule that binds the county boards of elections. County Boards.
Chair Carter moved to amend the motion on the floor (i) to place a stanchion and allow
the observer to use the east side of the public exit doorway, and(ii) to move the DS200
three feet west from the door, and(iii) to try that configuration for One Stop Voting on
Thursday through Monday, October 20-24, and (iv) to re-evaluate the situation at the next
meeting, second by Member Kemp. Chair Carter called on Director Hunter-Havens for
her comments.
Director Hunter-Havens said moving the DS200 is likely to cause some voter confusion
in navigating the voting enclosure. She said she is not sure how to make stanchions work
in the single-width doorway. If this Board believes the observer’sObserver’s use of that
exit door is more important than the needs of voters to have a clear navigable path in the
voting enclosure, then she will try to make it work. Curbside voting is 2 to 4% of voting
method at this site in the past. She said no observerObserver is prevented from being
stationed at the curbside area and no observerObserver is prevented from observing
curbside voting under the present configuration. No observerObserver can see and hear
everything occurring in a polling enclosurePolling Place or an Early Voting Site at all
times.
Chair Carter moved to amend the motion further to try the described configuration on
Thursday, October 20,; Friday, October 21,; and Monday, October 23, with discretion
vested in the Director and site leadSite Lead to modify the configuration if it is not
workable and return to the previous previously-planned configuration, andin which case
he requested a written and signed statement from the site leadSite Lead that the
configuration was unworkable, second by Member Kemp. Chair Carter called for any
additional discussion.
Secretary Miller said he appreciated that this layout has been a particular frustration for
the GOP observers, and he appreciated the Chair’s efforts to find a workable
compromise. He said he would defer to the staff’s judgment and experience. He said he
agrees that it is not the Board’s purpose to bend to every demand of party
observersObservers. He said the more workable solution is for the Party to appoint two
observersObservers and station one outside and one inside. He said the Board is not in
the bettera position to manage polling sites. Polling Places and Early Voting Sites.
Member Bryan said he appreciated the efforts to compromise. He respects the
commitment of observersObservers to this work. He said the Board needs to find a
DRAFT
Board Meeting 10/11/2022 Page | 15
balance at this location which can be easily attained. Additional signage may also be
helpful in guiding the voters through the site.
Chair Carter clarified that his request for the statement from the site leadSite Lead is not
part of his amendment, but is rather is intended to give the Board a factual record for the
Board to consider in reviewing the issue at the October 25 meeting. Member Bryan
asked if Chair Carter intends that the layout would not change until the Board agrees to
make the change?. Chair Carter said he intends in his motion to leave any change to the
discretion of the Director and site leadSite Lead to revert to the staff’s proposed
configuration if they find that the layout as moved byset forth in his motion is
unworkable.
Member Hunter said she would echo Secretary Miller’s comments about the Board not
being equipped to micromanage voting sites. Member Kemp interrupted Member Hunter
and moved to call the question. Chair Carter ruled the motion out of order and
admonished the Board to avoid cross-talk. Member Hunter continued her discussion,
saying the Board is attempting to micromanage a process that has apparently worked with
few, if any, complaints for years. She said she is not saying this complaint is not valid.
She said when appointing observers, the parties need to take into consideration the
existing requirements and limitations and the available volunteers. Recruiting younger,
quicker observers may be a better choice for this location. She
Member Hunter said that what she is hearing is, that, while the party thinks this is an
important issue, there is no willingness on their part to make any adjustment for their
part.. She said she is hearing from the Director that the staff-proposed layout has worked
best for the voters, who should be the Board’s priority. She said she finds it offensive to
require the site leadSite Lead to verify that something is not working, conveyingas this
conveys the impression that the Board does not trust the staff to fairly communicate the
result of the testtrial period to the Board. She said she appreciated the Chair’s efforts to
find an acceptable compromise. She said she does not feel qualified to make such
changes when the proposed layout has worked and there are alternative solutions to this
issue short of reconfiguring the site.
.
Chair Carter took up Member Kemp’s motion to call the question, which is Chair
Carter’s motion to amend the main motion. Member Bryan said he would not second the
motion to call the question because it lacks the degree of civility ofwith which this Board,
even customarily conducts its business. Even when we disagree, we to fully vettevet and
discuss issues. We have all had feelings of irritation or disagreement, but we have never
tried to cut off debate.
Hearing no further discussion, Chair Carter called for the vote on his motion to amend the
main motion to set a two-day trial period for the arrangement as described in the main
motion with discretion vested in the Director and the site lead whetherSite Lead to
continue that arrangement or revert to the staff-proposed arrangement. He intends to hear
a report in the next Board meeting on October 25. Chair Carter, and Members Hunter
and Kemp voted aye; Secretary Miller and Member Bryan voted nay. Motion to amend
carried by majority vote.
DRAFT
Board Meeting 10/11/2022 Page | 16
Chair Carter called for the vote on the main motion as amended twice. Chair Carter
restated the motion: to allow observersObservers to use the public exit for the first two
days of early voting, Thursday, October 20, and Friday, October 21, and authorizing the
Director and site leadSite Lead to continue or terminate that practice after two days, in
their discretion. Chair Carter, and Members Bryan and Kemp voted aye; Secretary Miller
and Member Hunter voted nay. Motion carried by majority vote.
6. GENERAL DISCUSSION
Chair Carter called for any general discussion. Member Kemp asked how many
absentee-by-mail requestsAbsentee Ballot Request Forms have been received? Director
Hunter-Havens said about 4,400.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Carter moved that the meeting be adjourned at 10:04 p.m. Motion carried
unanimously.
The next Board meeting is scheduled to be held on October 18, 2022, at 5:00 p.m. in the
Board of Elections office, Long Leaf Room, 1241A Military Cutoff Road, Wilmington,
NC.
APPROVED BY: RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY:
__________________________ __________________________________
DERRICK R. MILLER RAE HUNTER-HAVENS
SECRETARY ELECTIONS DIRECTOR
DRAFT
Board Meeting 10/11/2022 Page | 17
6ATTACHMENT
DRAFT
Board Meeting 10/11/2022 Page | 18
EXHIBIT A
List of Nominations Received from County Democratic Party Chair
October 11, 2022
Nominations submitted by the New Hanover County Democratic Party Chair, by precinct
and party affiliation:
CF01 Lisa Bohbrink (D)
Delores Miller (D)
Danny Ray (U)
Valerie Richards (U)
Linda Grattifiori (D)
FP03 Laurie Slugg (D)
Candace Ashton-Forrester (D)
Paul Biedrzycki (U)
William Wickliffe (U)
Allen Beckett (D)
H01 Lacey Brown (D)
Marla Rice-Evans (D)
H05 Marc McMullin (U)
Alison Dutka (R)
Julie Spence (D)
Celine Demeyer (U)
Judy Halip (D)
Marianne Billeter (U)
H10 Susan Allen (U)
H11 Karl Ricanek (U)
Kelli Corts (R)
Michael Dalessandro (U)
Rona Waterman (D)
Anita Thomas (D)
M03 Luisa Tassan (D)
Johnny Lingo (U)
James Smith (R)
Christine Ayala (U)
W03 Robert Carpenter (D)
Timothy Gallivan (U)
Robert Stanich (D)
Sandra McEwen (D)
Formatted: Underline
DRAFT
Board Meeting 10/11/2022 Page | 19
Christopher Rogers (D)
W08 Eva Sclippa (D)
Rosemary Gonzales-Pinnick (D)
W12 Kathleen Strongylos (D)
Dana Sachs (D)
Laura Weeks (D)
Margaret Davit (D)
Rebecca Marks (D)
W26 Autumn Beauchamp (D)
Nancy Barefoot (D)
Reed Wallace (D)
Alice Evans (U)
W27 Mary Katherine Wolf (D)
Robert Haines (D)
Teresa Phillips (R)
W29 Laura (Kathy) Lindenmayer (U)
Jamie Aucoin (D)
Jonathan Rickards (D)
Sandra Bell (D)
W32 Lashana Flood (D)
Janice Kilpatrick (D)
Emily Fountain (D)
DRAFT
Board Meeting 10/11/2022 Page | 20
ATTACHMENTEXHIBIT B
List of Nominations Received from County Republican Party Chair
(All are registered Republicans and non-resident transfers unless indicated otherwise)
FP04 Denice Fipps, reassign from W21 to CF05
• Denise Fipps, resident of FP04, is nominated for assignment to CF05, CFCC
North Campus. Travel distance from FP04 to CF05 would normally deter
staff from assigning her there due to the travel distance and long hours on
Election Day. She is currently assigned to W21 which is much closer for her.
The open position in CF05 is a laptop operator. Appointing Ms. Phipps to that
position must be contingent on her satisfactory completion of the E-Skills
Assessment and her agreement to the move. Moving her to CF05 will create a
vacancy in W21, but as a more central precinct, it is easier to fill that vacancy.
H06 Frank Lopez, reassign to CF06
• Frank Lopez is already assigned in his home precinct, H06.
H13 Yvonne Spencer, assign to WB
• Yvonne Spencer initially declined to work on Election Day. Since her name kept
appearing on the Republican Party chair’s list, staff talked with her again. She,
very reluctantly, agreed to assignment in Wrightsville Beach.
M07 Shanda West, assign to W33
• Shanda West, a resident in M03, was reluctant to commit to working Election
Day when initially contacted. Will assign her to W33 if she has changed her mind
and accepts assignment to W33.
H04 Reuel Sample, nominated as judge in M02, offered appointment as judge in H04
• Reuel Sample, a resident of H04, has been asked to serve in H04 but is waiting to
see if he is appointed to serve in M02 before accepting appointment in H04.
There is a need for a Republican judge in M02, and there are Republican officials
already assigned there, one of whom is a former chief judge, who should be
considered. Due to the high voter turnout in M02, a strong team of officials is
needed to manage the demand.
M04 Eileen Patterson, nominated as judge in M04
• Eileen Patterson, a resident of M04, is already assigned to work in her home
precinct and is qualified for appointment as a judge there.
M06 Katie Gates as judge in M06
• Katie Gates, a resident of M06, is already assigned to work in her home precinct
and is qualified for appointment as a judge there.
Formatted: Underline
DRAFT
Board Meeting 10/11/2022 Page | 21
W25 Cliff Brock move from W25 assistant to W15 as judge
• Cliff Brock, a resident of W25, was appointed by the Board on October 4 to serve
in his home precinct. The Republican Party chair has requested his reassignment
in a series of emails, to W13, W15, and W17.
H13 Carl Samet move from H13 to judge in W32
• Carl Samet, a resident of H13, was appointed by the Board on October 4 to serve
in his home precinct. If the Board decides to appoint him as a judge to serve in
W32, it will not be difficult to replace him in H13.
DRAFT
Board Meeting 10/18/2022 Page | 1
SPECIAL MEETING
New Hanover County Board of Elections
October 18, 2022
5:00 P.M.
ATTENDANCE
Members: Oliver Carter III, Chairman
Derrick R. Miller, Secretary
Russ C. Bryan, Member
Lyana G. Hunter, Member (attending online)
Bruce Kemp, Member
Staff: Rae Hunter-Havens, Executive Director
Caroline Dawkins, Deputy Director
Jenna Dahlgren, Elections Logistics Specialist
Joan Geiszler-Ludlum, Administrative Elections Technician
Noelle Powers, Election Systems Specialist
Beth Pugh, Elections Specialist
Jessica O’Neill, Elections Program and Outreach Coordinator
Election Assistants: Cher Pridgen, Jane Saunders, Sharon Smith,
Emily Fountain, Pam Green, Sarah Vitt
Visitors: Lisa Wurtzbacher, Assistant County Manager; Kemp Burpeau,
Deputy County Attorney
Public Attendees: Lynn Dunn; Matthew Emborsky, NHC GOP; Sheila Fellerath,
League of Women Voters LCF; Susanne Werner, NHCDP; Diane
Zaryki; Chad Whitaker; Auley Crouch
Virtual Attendees: JK (guest); Sarah Vitt; Noelle Powers; Denise Brown; CAP
(guest); Tyler Daye
1. MEETING OPENING
a. Call to Order
Chair Carter called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. The New Hanover County Board of
Elections meeting was held in the Board of Elections office, Long Leaf Room, 1241A
Military Cutoff Road, Wilmington, NC. Members Carter, Miller, and Kemp were
present, with Member Hunter attending online. Chair Carter called the meeting to order
at 5:00 p.m.
DRAFT
Board Meeting 10/18/2022 Page | 2
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. Chair Carter announced that there are
currently no tropical systems in the Atlantic Basin with potential to disrupt voting. Chair
Carter announced the scheduled dates for the upcoming Board meetings: special
absentee meetingsSpecial Meetings on November 8, November 17, and November 18,
and a Regular meetingMeeting on November 15.
[Member Bryan arrived at 5:02 p.m.]
c. Pledge of Allegiance
Chair Carter called on 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. Motion carried unanimously.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT AND QUESTION PERIOD
Chair Carter called upon the public attendees for their comments or questions, limited to
two minutes each with a total maximum time of ten minutes.
Chair Carter noted receipt of an email from Julius Rothlein, NHC GOP, reporting his
findings from the public review of the Container-Return EnvelopesAbsentee Ballot
Applications1 to date.
Matthew Emborsky, NHC GOP, said he is concerned that the Board has authorized
duplication of the UOCAVA ballots by staff prior to the meeting. He offered his
comments about the Logic and Accuracy testing and his submission of a public records
request to review the testing zero tapes before Election Day.
Chair Carter called on Director Hunter-Havens for the next scheduled public review of
the Container-Return Envelopes.Applications. Director Hunter-Havens said the next
scheduled public review will be October 28. Member Kemp asked the Director to
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 itself
while “Application” will generally refer to the form printed on the outside of the Envelope.
DRAFT
Board Meeting 10/18/2022 Page | 3
consider allowing more time in the next public review session in recognition of the
increasing volume.
Seeing and hearing no other public attendees wishing to comment, Chair Carter closed
the Public Comment period.
5. OLD BUSINESS
• Approval of Minutes of 06/30/2022
Member Kemp moved to table approval of the 06/30/2022 Minutes until after completion
of the canvass to allow him more time to review Chair Carter’s revisions, second by
Chair Carter. Motion carried unanimously.
4. STATUTORILY-REQUIRED BUSINESS
a. Chief Judge and Judge Appointments of Chief Judges and Judges
Chair Carter called on Director Hunter-Havens for an update on the statusappointment of
chief judgeChief Judges and judge assignments Judge for Election Day.
Director Hunter-Havens said the list before the Board iscontains the chief judgesnames of
Chief Judges and judgesJudges who are not available to work this election and the
recommended substitutes. She called on Deputy Director Dawkins to report and answer
any questions.
Deputy Director Dawkins said in 12 of the 15 openings, a resident precinct
officialPrecinct Official already assigned in the precinct has agreed to fillserve as the
chief judgeChief Judge or judge position. In all cases, she Judge. She said that in each
case, staff made a strong effort was made to match therecommend substitutes who are
members of the same political party ofas the unavailable judge when possible.Precinct
Officials. She is still expecting to hear back from 2two officials to confirm their
willingness to serve.
Chair Carter thanked the staff for the update. He asked for clarification about the
Election Day assignments list received today by email. Director Hunter-Havens
confirmed it is the current list of all assignments to date.
b. Review of Absentee Ballot Applications
Chair Carter called on Director Hunter-Havens for her report.
Director Hunter-Havens presented 354 absentee-by-mail applicationsApplications for the
Board’s consideration, and proceeded to present those that require Board action.
Director Hunter-Havens presented the following:
DRAFT
Board Meeting 10/18/2022 Page | 4
• 1 Container-Return Envelope that was, when received showing evidence that the
envelope was, appeared to have been opened and then taped closed when
received.. The voter was contacted and said the envelope was glued shut when
she received it,; she opened it to insert her ballot and then taped it closed.
Director Hunter-Havens recommended approval based on the information that
confirmed the ballot and envelope had not been tampered with.
After review by the Board, Member Kemp moved approval of the Container-
ReturnApplication on this Envelope, second by Chair Carter, who called on the Board for
any discussion.
Member Bryan asked about the phone number used to contact the voter. Director
Hunter-Havens said the staff rely on information provided by the voter, such as a phone
number on the Absentee Ballot Request. Form.
Hearing no further discussion, Chair Carter called for the vote on the motion to approve
the Applications. Chair Carter, Secretary Miller, and Members Bryan and Kemp voted
aye; Member Hunter abstained because she was participating remotely and was not able
to review the Container-Return Envelope or Application2. Motion carried by majority
vote.
• 3 Container-Return EnvelopesApplications with cure certifications that require
Board approvalreview.
Member Bryan asked about 1 cure certification faxed by the voter. Director Hunter-
Havens said the guidance from the State Board of Elections (“SBE”) is that thea voter is
permitted to return the cure certification in any way available to the voter, including
faxing the certification.
After discussion, Member Kemp moved approval of the 3 Applications with cure
certifications, second by Chair Carter. Hearing no discussion, hair Carter called for the
vote. Chair Carter, Secretary Miller, and Members Bryan and Kemp voted aye; Member
Hunter abstained because she was participating remotely and not able to review the
Container-Return Envelope. Motion carried by majority vote.
• 4 Container-Return Envelopes for Board review with small tears or signs of
damage insufficient to suggest tampering for Board review.
Following their review, Member Kemp moved approval of the 4 Applications, second by
Chair Carter. Hearing no discussion, Chair Carter called the vote. Chair Carter,
Secretary Miller, and Members Bryan and Kemp voted aye; Member Hunter abstained
because she was participating remotely and not able to review the Container-Return
Envelope. Motion carried by majority vote.
2 Member Hunter abstained from all subsequent decisions at this meeting regarding Applications that she
was unable to see; henceforth, her abstentions will be noted, but the reason will not be stated.
DRAFT
Board Meeting 10/18/2022 Page | 5
• 5 Container-Return5 Envelopes that were received by mail either without postage
or without postmarks.
SheThe Director reminded the Board that the absence of a postmark is not disqualifying
before Election Day. For absentee ballots received after Election Day, the absence of a
postmark is disqualifying.
The Board raisesraised a question about one of these Container-Return Envelopes
whereApplications on which the voter and a witness appeared to be the same person
based on the name and signatures.
After review, Member Kemp moved approval of the 4 Applications received without
postage, Chair Carter second. Hearing no discussion, Chair Carter called the vote. Chair
Carter, Secretary Miller, Members Bryan and Kemp voted aye; Member Hunter abstained
because she was participating remotely and not able to review the Container-Return
Envelope.. Motion carried by majority vote.
Member Kemp moved to refer the Application with the question about the identity of the
voter and a witness back to staff to obtain a cure certification or spoil and reissue the
absentee ballot, second by Chair Carter. Director Hunter-Havens said there is no cure
certification allowed for a witness’s signature. She said she is reluctant to hold this
returned ballotApplication until the next board meeting because it leaves a very shortlittle
time for staff to resendsend the voter another ballot and for the voter to complete and
return the new ballot timelyand Application before the deadline. The Board agreed to
defer action to allow the staff to attempt to contact the voter for clarification during the
meeting.
• Later in the meeting, 11 UOCAVA duplicated ballots for Board review and
acceptance in accordance with the Board’s resolution of October 11, 2022.
The Board members proceeded to review the UOCAVA ballots to verify the accurate
duplication of the ballots in preparation for scanning.
Director Hunter-Havens said Election Specialist Pugh has checked on contact
information for the voter of the deferred ballot and reports no phone number was
provided or available. Based on the voter’s address, the voter appears to reside in an
assisted living facility but was not assisted by a MAT team.
Based on this information, Chair Carter moved to spoil and reissue the ballot to the voter,
second by Member Bryan. Hearing no discussion, Chair Carter called the vote. Chair
Carter, Secretary Miller, and Members Bryan and Kemp voted aye; Member Hunter
abstained because she was participating remotely and not able to review the Container-
Return Envelope. Motion carried by majority vote.
• 11 UOCAVA duplicated ballots for Board review and acceptance in accordance
with the Board’s resolution of October 11, 2022.
DRAFT
Board Meeting 10/18/2022 Page | 6
The Board members proceeded to review the UOCAVA ballots to verify the accurate
duplication of the ballots in preparation for scanning.
The Board proceeded to review the UOCAVA ballots by two bipartisan teams. Upon
completion of their review, Member Bryan moved approval of the 11 UOCAVA ballots,
second by Member Kemp. Hearing no discussion, Chair Carter called the vote. Chair
Carter, Secretary Miller, and Members Bryan and Kemp voted aye; Member Hunter
abstained because she was participating remotely and not able to review the Container-
Return Envelope. Motion carried by majority vote.
Chair Carter said that leaves 339 Container-Return EnvelopesApplications to review. He
moved to review a 20% sample of 20% of the Container-Return Envelopesremaining
Applications, which is 68 or more depending on the precincts selected for review, second
by Secretary Miller. He called for any discussion on the motion.
Member Kemp said he would prefer to review all Container-Return
EnvelopesApplications concurrently with scanning. Chair Carter said the Board
discussed review concurrent with scanning at their previous meeting. He prefers not to
run the two processes simultaneously because the noise from scanning makes it difficult
to concentrate on the review process. Member Kemp asked if this motion included
splitting the Board into two bi-partisan teams for the review. Chair Carter said that is
part of his motion. Member Kemp said Numbered Memo 2020-25 requires the Board to
set a defined process.
For clarity, Chair Carter revised his motion: that the Board review a sample 20% of the
domestic civilian absentee-by-mail ballots received, Applications, with each Board
memberMember selecting a precinct, beginning with Member Bryan, until the total
number of ballotsApplications equals or exceeds 68, and reviewing them in bi-
partisanwith the Board breaking out into two bipartisan teams to conduct the review,
second by Member Bryan. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Carter called for the
vote. Chair Carter, Secretary Miller, and Members Bryan and Hunter voted aye; Member
Kemp voted nay. Motion carried by majority vote.
[Member Hunter left the meeting at 6:01 p.m.]
The Board selected precincts W25 (13), M03 (23), W33 (5), and H13 (27), for a total of
68 Container-Return Envelopes Applications to review. Review began at 6:07 p.m. and
concluded at 6:15 p.m.
Chair Carter reconvened the meeting and moved approval of 349 domestic civilian
absentee-by-mail ballots including Applications and authorization tofor staff to perform
the preparatory steps to open of opening the Envelopes and scanremoving and scanning
the ballots, second by Member Bryan. After brief discussion, Chair Carter called for the
vote. Chair Carter, Secretary Miller, and Member Bryan voted aye; Member Kemp voted
nay. Motion carried by majority vote.
DRAFT
Board Meeting 10/18/2022 Page | 7
Opening and scanning began at 6:21 p.m. and was completed at 7:29 p.m. Chair Carter
reconvenedcalled the meeting back to order.
ADJOURNMENT
Member Kemp moved that the meeting be adjourned at 7:29 p.m., second by Member
Bryan. Motion carried unanimously.
The next Board meeting is scheduled to be held on October 25, 2022, at 5:00 p.m., at the
Board of Elections office, Long Leaf Room, 1241A Military Cutoff Road, Wilmington,
NC
APPROVED BY: RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
_______________________________ _____________________________
DERRICK R. MILLER RAE HUNTER-HAVENS
SECRETARY ELECTIONS DIRECTOR
DRAFT
Board Minutes 10/25/2022 P a g e | 1
REGULAR MEETING
New Hanover County Board of Elections
October 25, 2022
5:00 P.M.
ATTENDANCE
Members: Oliver Carter III, Chairman
Derrick R. Miller, Secretary
Russ C. Bryan, Member
Lyana G. Hunter, Member
Bruce Kemp, Member (attending online)
Staff: Rae Hunter-Havens, Executive Director
Caroline Dawkins, Deputy Director
Jenna Dahlgren, Elections Logistics Specialist
Joan Geiszler-Ludlum, Administrative Elections Technician
Election Assistants: Pam Green, Cher Pridgen, Jim Keefe, Sarah
Vitt, Sharon Smith, Emily Fountain, Jane Saunders
Visitors: Lisa Wurtzbacher, Assistant County Manager
Public Attendees: Leslie Antos, Sheila Fellerath, Susanne Werner, League of Women
Voters LCF; Nichole Kingston; Lynn Dunn; Ricky Meeks; Lana
Nesbit; Matthew Embry, NHC GOP; Auley Crouch; Chad
Whitaker; Carl Blankenship, Port City Daily
Virtual Attendees: Cherie Albright; Jessica O’Neill; Nicole Powers; Sarah Vitt;
unknown caller; Tyler Daye; Diann
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. Members Carter, Miller, Bryan and Hunter were
present, with Member Kemp attending online. Chair Carter called the meeting to order at
5:03 p.m.
b. Preliminary Announcements
DRAFT
Board Minutes 10/25/2022 P a g e | 2
Chair Carter announced the purpose of the meeting is to review approximately 520
absentee-by-mail ballotsAbsentee Ballot Applications1 received since the previous
meeting. Chair Carter reminded the audience to silence their cell phones and that the
meeting is being recorded and live streamed over the internet.
Chair Carter announced the schedule for the upcoming Board meetings in November:
November 1, which will be treated as a regular meeting in addition to the Special
Absentee review meeting, with a 20-minute public comment period, new business, and
general discussion; November 7 and 8, special absentee review meetings; November 15,
the scheduled regular monthly meeting; November 17, pre-canvass,; and November 18,
final canvass meetings. He proposed scheduling a second pre-canvass meeting on
November 10 and requested the Board members to let him know about their availability
for that date in the next few days.
Chair Carter announced there are no tropical systems expected to affect the Cape Fear
area.
c. Pledge of Allegiance
Chair Carter called on all in attendance to rise and recite the Pledge of Allegiance.
d. Approval of Agenda
Secretary Miller moved that the agenda be approved as submitted, second by Member
Bryan. Motion carried unanimously.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT AND QUESTION PERIOD
Chair Carter called upon the public attendees for their comments or questions, limited to
two minutes each with a total maximum time of ten minutes.
Chair Carter acknowledged receiving written comments sent by email from Will Knecht,
NHC GOP chair, regarding polling place access for(i) access to the polling places and
one-stop sites by members of the public each morning before voting begins and (ii)
access within the polling places and one-stop sites by credentialed observers.
Matthew Emborsky said the NHC GOP has today filed a petition for a temporary
restraining order against the State Board of Elections ((“SBE)”) regarding the correct
interpretation of the statutory meaning ofphrase “opening of the polls.” Mr. Emborsky
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 itself
while “Application” will generally refer to the form printed on the outside of the Envelope.
DRAFT
Board Minutes 10/25/2022 P a g e | 3
also said he disagrees with the Board’s decision to allow staff to duplicate UOCAVA2
ballots out of public view. Chair Carter clarified that the duplication utilizesof UOCAVA
ballots is performed by bi-partisan duplication teams of staff with the bi-partisan teams of
Board relying onmembers comparing the oaths ofsubmitted ballots with the team
members and duplicated ballots. The Board and the bipartisan teams of staff all take an
oath to perform their duties according to the law.
Ricky Meeks said when he went to vote at the Carolina Beach early voting site the
previous Friday, an electioneer outside the polling site asked him if he showed his ID
when he voted. He requested the Board send a letter to the party chairsParty Chairs not
to allow their representatives to ask that, since ID is not required by law.
Member Kemp asked for an update on the plan to allow Observers at the Northeast
Library observer access plan enacted at the to use the public exit to observe curbside
voting as voted upon at the Board’s previous meeting. Chair Carter said the observer
plannew arrangement has gone smoothly so far, and he expects it will continue. There
have not been a lot of times where the observerObserver has gone outside to observe
curbside voting.
Seeing and hearing no other members of the public attendees wishing to comment, Chair
Carter closed the Public Comment period.
4. STATUTORILY-REQUIRED BUSINESS
a. Review of Absentee Ballot Applications
Chair Carter called on Director Hunter-Havens for her report.
Director Hunter-Havens presented 585 absentee ballot applicationsApplications which
are recommended for the Board’s approval, including 37 Overseas and
MilitaryUOCAVA ballots. She proceeded to present the those 37 ballots plus an
additional 17 Applications which require additional Board review andbefore approval due
to (i) minor irregularities or (ii) defects that were cured by the voter.
First, the Director presented the Board with the duplicated UOCAVA ballots
• 37 duplicated Overseas and Military ballots, including
• 1 ballot received through the visually impaired portal (VIP) with a digital
signature [verify the VIP ballot was a UOCAVA ballot; if not, restructure this part
of the minutes to clarify]
• 37 duplicated Overseas and Military ballots
2 The Uniformed and Overseas Voter Absentee Voting Act (“UOCAVA”) makes special provisions for
absentee voting by members of the armed services and civilians who are overseas during an election.
Ballots cast pursuant to this Act are frequently referred to as UOCAVA ballots.
DRAFT
Board Minutes 10/25/2022 P a g e | 4
The Board members began to review the duplicated UOCAVA absentee
Applicationsballots at 5:28 p.m.
[Member Kemp left the meeting at 5:30 p.m. since he is unable to review and vote on the
Applications while attending remotely to review and vote on the absentee ballot
applications under consideration.]
Member Bryan questioned whether a UOCAVA votervoters must be physically overseas
or can returnwhen they cast their ballot from a domestic address?. He referred to two
UOCAVA ballot packets under review where the packets had been sent to the voter via
email but returned to the Board via US mail with abearing a postmark from the “Capital
District” postmark.”. Director Hunter-Havens agreed to hold both UOCAVA ballots for
staff review to answer his question.
[Kemp Burpeau, Deputy County Attorney, arrived at 6:08 p.m.]
The Board completed its review of UOCAVA reviewballots at 6:12 p.m.
Chair Carter moved approval of 35 of the 37 UOCAVA duplicated UOCAVA ballots
while holding off on approving the two mailed from DC, second by Secretary Miller.
Hearing no discussion, Chair Carter called for the vote. Motion carried unanimously.
Next, Director Hunter-Havens presented absentee-by-mail ballots with discrepancies17
domestic civilian Envelopes and Applications that require Board review and actiondue to
(i) minor irregularities or (ii) defects that were cured by the voter:
• 2 Applications recommended for approval with all requirements met but 1 witness
signature ran out of the box and 1 witness provided only an address without a
house number. Staff verified there is a registered voter at the given partial
address given.
Secretary Miller moved approval of the 2 Applications, second by Member Hunter.
Hearing no discussion, Chair Carter called the vote. Motion carried unanimously.
• 3 Applications recommended for approval, received with proper cure
certifications. In one case, the voter failed to sign but notary attached the notary
certification anyway, which the Director has reported to the Secretary of State as
required.
Member Hunter moved approval of the 3 Applications with cure certifications, second by
Secretary Miller. Hearing no discussion, Chair Carter called the vote. Motion carried
unanimously.
• 4 Applications recommended for approval which were received without postage
but were processed and delivered with US mail. via US mail at the same time as
other US mail was delivered to the Board’s office.
DRAFT
Board Minutes 10/25/2022 P a g e | 5
Member Bryan moved approval of the 4 Applications, second by Member Hunter.
Hearing no discussion, Chair Carter called the vote. Motion carried unanimously.
• 5 Applications recommended for approval which were received in Container-
Return Envelopes with minor tears or damage but no evidence of tampering.
Chair Carter moved approval of the 5 Applications, second by Member Bryan. Hearing
no discussion, Chair Carter called the vote. Motion carried unanimously.
• 3 Applications recommended for approval with other discrepancies:minor
irregularities:
•
▪ 1 Application with an expired notary date noted as 8/15/2022, after
learning from the Secretary of State that the correct expiration date is
8/15/2027;
▪ 1 Application where the voter printed her first name as Elizabeth, but she
is registered as and signed as Betty;
▪ 1 Application with a pink in-person return log sheet instead of the usual
brown. in-person return log. Pink log sheets are used tousually indicate a
returned cure certification.
Member Hunter moved approval of the 3 Applications, second by Secretary Miller.
Hearing no discussion, Chair Carter called the vote. Motion carried unanimously.
After discussion, the Board agreed to proceed with review of a 20% sample of the total
domestic civilian absentee-by-mail Applications and Container-Return Envelopes, which
is 100 Applications, in addition to the 17 already reviewed. The Board agreed to random
selection ofrandomly select precincts for the sample. The Board selected precincts W26
(9), H10 (11), M04 (28), M07 (14), FP08 (15), WB (3), W03 (4), W25 (11), and CF02
(5) for a total of 100 Applications to review. Board began their review at 6:44 p.m., and
concluded at 7:15 p.m.
Chair Carter moved approval of 531 domestic civilian absentee-by-mail Applications,
second by Member Hunter. Hearing no discussion, Chair Carter called the vote. Motion
carried unanimously.
Chair Carter moved approval of 10,762 ballots cast at One Stop Applications received
fromEarly voting sites between October 20, 2022 through, and October 24, 2022, second
by Secretary Miller. Motion carried unanimously.
As to the 531 domestic civilian Applications approved by the Board, Chair Carter moved
authorization of to authorize the staff to take the necessarypreparatory steps to prepareof
opening the Envelopes and scan the approved civilian absentee-by-mailremoving and
scanning the ballots therein, second by Member Hunter. Motion carried unanimously.
Scanning began at 7:21 p.m. and concluded at 8:29 p.m.
5. ADJOURNMENT
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", No bullets or numbering
DRAFT
Board Minutes 10/25/2022 P a g e | 6
Chair Carter moved that the meeting be adjourned at 8:29 p.m., second by Member
Bryan. Motion carried unanimously.
The next Board meeting is scheduled to be held on November 1, 2022, at 5:15 [5:00]
p.m., at the Board of Elections office, Long Leaf Room, 1241A Military Cutoff Road,
Wilmington, NC
APPROVED BY: RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
_______________________________ _____________________________
DERRICK R. MILLER RAE HUNTER-HAVENS
SECRETARY ELECTIONS DIRECTOR
Formatted: Highlight
DRAFT
Board Minutes 11/18/2022 Page | 1
SPECIAL MEETING
New Hanover County Board of Elections
November 18, 2022
11:00 A.M.
ATTENDANCE
Members: Oliver Carter III, Chairman
Derrick R. Miller, Secretary
Russ C. Bryan, Member
Lyana G. Hunter, Member
Bruce Kemp, Member
Staff: Rae Hunter-Havens, Executive Director
Caroline Dawkins, Deputy Director
Jenna Dahlgren, Elections Logistics Specialist
Jessica O’Neill, Outreach and Recruitment Coordinator
Noelle Powers, Election Systems Specialist
Beth Pugh, Elections Specialist
Joan Geiszler-Ludlum, Administrative Elections Technician
Election Assistants: Jim Keefe, Jane Saunders, Sharon Smith.
Visitors: Lisa Wurtzbacher, Assistant County Manager; Kemp Burpeau,
Deputy County Attorney; Jennifer Sparks, PrintElect.
Public Attendees: Leslie Antos, League of Women Voters LCF; Matilda Gregg, You
Can Vote; Julius Rothlein, NHC GOP; Katelin Kaiser, Southern
Coalition for Social Justice; Bryan Warner, Common Cause NC;
Nichole Kingston; Deborah Abel, NCRSP; Pete Divoky; Richard
Poole, NHCDP; Diane Zaryki; Michael Praats, WECT.
Virtual Attendees: Jason Durgala; Ben Schachtman; Emma Dill; 336-404-7741;
Jessica O’Neill; Jennah B.; Jane Saunders; 910-398-2269; Sheila
F.; Denise Brown.
1. MEETING OPENING
a. Call to Order
Chair Carter called the recessed meeting from November 17, 2022 to order at 11:02 a.m.
The New Hanover County Board of Elections meeting was held in the Board of Elections
office, Long Leaf Room, 1241A Military Cutoff Road, Wilmington, NC. Chair Carter,
Secretary Miller, Members Bryan and Kemp were present.
DRAFT
Board Minutes 11/18/2022 Page | 2
2. OLD BUSINESS
a. Sample Audit Count
Chair Carter called on Deputy Director Dawkins for her report on the sample audit hand-
eye count conducted on November 17. Deputy Director Dawkins explained the sample
audit count of the results from precincts FP08 and H13 was conducted by bipartisan
teams. The results for precinct FP08 matched the DS200 Election Day report perfectly.
The results for precinct H13 required three counts with candidate Budd receiving 2 more
votes than the Election Day report, based on the team’s determination of voter intent by
unanimous agreement, a result which is well within the acceptable margins.
Secretary Miller said he wanted to highlight for the record that the hand-eye recount
confirmed the machine count results.
b. Review of Supplemental Absentee Ballot Applications
Director Hunter-Havens presented 4 additional absentee ballots known as FWABs
(Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot) which were timely received for the Board’s
consideration. She explained that a FWAB is a back-up means of voting for eligible
military and overseas voters which requires the voter to write in their selections. These
ballots must be duplicated based on voter intent, in the same manner as the UOCAVA
ballots, for scanning and tabulating. Director Hunter-Havens said these are in the process
of duplication and will be presented when duplication is completed.
The Director then presented 1 absentee ballot that was considered and opened on
November 7. Upon opening, it was apparent that the slicer had torn across the US Senate
contest. The Board accepted the ballot, but both the bipartisan duplication team and the
Board found that they were unable to determine the voter’s intent for that contest. The
Board approved the other contests as voted after duplication. Staff member Jenna
Dahlgren subsequently sorted through the slivers and found the one that fit perfectly with
the damaged ballot and from which the voter’s intent could be determined.
After thanking Ms. Dahlgren for her dedication and diligence, Chair Carter moved to
authorize the staff to retrieve the ballot and adjust the voter’s record to include the vote,
second by Member Bryan. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Carter called for the
vote. Motion carried with Chair Carter, Secretary Miller, Members Bryan and Kemp
voting aye; Member Hunter abstained, having arrived in the meeting at 11:17 a.m. during
the Board discussion of the matter.
The Board returned to consideration of the 4 duplicated FWABs. Chair Carter said the
FWAB is a special accommodation for overseas and military voters by federal law.
Director Hunter-Havens recommended approval, noting these were held to make sure that
the voters did not also return their regular absentee ballot. She further noted that the
FWABs are being pushed through because the voter is eligible, even though a sequence
number has not yet been assigned. When the sequence number is assigned, it will be
added to the FWAB duplicated ballot. The Board members proceeded to review the
duplicated FWABs.
DRAFT
Board Minutes 11/18/2022 Page | 3
Hearing no further discussion, Chair Carter moved approval of the 4 FWAB ballots,
second by Member Bryan. Motion carried unanimously.
Director Hunter-Havens presented 1 absentee ballot Application received after the return
deadline of 5:00 p.m. on November 14, 2022. Member Kemp moved to disapprove the
late absentee ballot, second by Secretary Miller. Motion carried unanimously.
Chair Carter moved to adjourn the recessed Special Meeting of November 17, 2022, at
11:20 a.m., second by Secretary Miller. Hearing no discussion, Chair Carter called the
vote. Motion carried unanimously.
1. MEETING OPENING
a. Call to Order
Chair Carter called to order the November 18, 2022 Special Board Meeting at 11:21 a.m.
He said the purpose of the meeting is address preliminary matters including voter
challenges and then to conduct the final canvass.
b. Preliminary Announcements
Chair Carter reminded the audience to silence their cell phones and disclosed that the
meeting is being recorded and live streamed over the internet.
c. Pledge of Allegiance
Chair Carter called on 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 with a total maximum time of ten minutes. He asked that
each speaker give their name and the name of the organization they represent.
Matthew Emborsky, NHC GOP, said in his opinion the sample size used in the Sample
Audit Count is too small and the precincts sampled, as selected by the State Board of
Elections (SBE) does not include a One Stop site or the absentee ballots for New
Hanover County. Chair Carter described the procedure the SBE uses to randomly select
two precincts from among the precincts, One Stop sites and absentee ballots for each
county for the Sample Audit Count. Mr. Emborsky said the two precincts sampled
account for about 2,500 of the cast in this election or .027 percent. Two overvotes found
in the sample, spread over all votes cast, suggest a significant number of errors in votes
DRAFT
Board Minutes 11/18/2022 Page | 4
counted. He further said that during the Sample Audit Count it appeared that one stack of
ballots may have been pre-sorted which raised a possible question about the chain of
custody of the ballots. He recommended adding security seals to the ballot boxes before
returning the ballots after the polls close on Election Day, and opening them in public
view for the Sample Audit Count.
Seeing and hearing no other public attendees wishing to comment, Chair Carter closed
the Public Comment period.
Diane Zaryki said she is receiving text messages that this meeting is not accessible
online. Jenna Dahlgren confirmed that there are several people currently online.
3. NEW BUSINESS
a. Absentee Ballot Challenge Hearings
Chair Carter called on Director Hunter-Havens to present 6 absentee ballot challenges.
Director Hunter-Havens said the only way to disqualify an absentee ballot is by a filed
challenge.
(1) Absentee Ballot Challenge - Alicia Atkinson
Director Hunter-Havens said the challenge is based on the voter’s improper return of her
absentee ballot on Election Day to her precinct polling place where she inserted her ballot
directly into the DS200. The chief judge said she told the voter she must return her
absentee ballot to the Board of Elections office. The voter said the chief judge instructed
her to insert the ballot in the DS200.
After discussion, Member Kemp moved to deny the challenge and count the ballot,
second by Secretary Miller. Chair Carter called the vote. Motion carried unanimously.
(2) Absentee Ballot Challenge – Michael Anthony Lloyd III
Director Hunter-Havens said the challenge is based on Mr. Lloyd returning a UOCAVA
ballot, but voter history indicated he voted during One Stop. Mr. Lloyd said he thought
his father may have voted on his registration in error.
After discussion, Member Kemp moved to approve the challenge, set aside the One Stop
ballot, and count the UOCAVA absentee ballot, second by Member Hunter. Chair Carter
called the vote. Motion carried unanimously.
Chair Carter moved to authorize the bipartisan duplication team to duplicate the
UOCAVA ballot for scanning and tabulating, second by Member Kemp. Chair Carter
called the vote. Motion carried unanimously.
In response to a question about how many Michael Anthony Lloyds are registered in New
Hanover County, Chair Carter moved to table the previous actions until the staff
DRAFT
Board Minutes 11/18/2022 Page | 5
determine the answer, second by Member Kemp. Following discussion, the motion
carried unanimously.
(3) Absentee Ballot Challenge – Charlotte Hicks
Director Hunter-Havens said the challenge is based on the precinct official selecting the
wrong voter at One Stop check-in, which the voter noted before signing the SOSA
application but after the ballot was printed. Because the printed ballot was not the correct
ballot for this voter, the precinct official reissued the SOSA and ballot, then mistakenly
spoiled the correct second ballot and gave the first incorrect ballot to the voter, which
contained contests for which the voter was ineligible. Upon returning home, the voter
realized she had voter the incorrect ballot style and returned to the One Stop location.
The chief judge located the spoiled and the voted ballots, and allowed the voter to vote a
provisional ballot. The action for the Board to consider is to sustain the challenge to the
first ballot cast at the One Stop location and to approve the provisional ballot cast by the
voter.
Member Kemp moved to uphold the challenge as to the first ballot, approve the
provisional ballot, and amend voter history accordingly, second by Member Hunter.
Following additional discussion, Chair Carter called the vote. Motion carried
unanimously.
(4) Absentee Ballot Challenge – Jeffrey Conolly, Jr.
Director Hunter-Havens said One Stop voter Jeffrey Connoly Sr. was processed on his
son’s voter record as Jeffrey Conolly, Jr. The son registered by same day registration and
voted in Durham County, which caused his registration to be flagged in SEIMS as a
possible double vote. Conolly Sr.’s voter registration was removed for inactivity, but he
remained eligible to vote upon updating his contact information. Director Hunter-Havens
noted that when this question came to her attention, staff reached out to Conolly Sr. and
had him cast a provisional ballot which will also reinstate his registration.
Secretary Miller moved to sustain the challenge to the ballot cast as Jeffrey Connoly Jr.,
and correct the voter history to apply the father’s ballot to his voter record, second by
Member Bryan. After further discussion, Secretary Miller revised the motion for
clarification, to sustain the challenge to the ballot as cast and update the Connoly Jr.’s
voter history accordingly. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Carter called the vote.
Motion carried unanimously.
Member Kemp left the meeting at 12:05 p.m.
Chair Carter called next for consideration of Conolly Sr.’s provisional ballot. Member
Hunter moved approval of Conolly Sr.’s provisional ballot, second by Secretary Miller.
Hearing no further discussion, Chair Carter called the vote. Motion carried 4-0, with
Member Kemp not present for the vote.
(5) Absentee Ballot Challenge – Roger Peter James
DRAFT
Board Minutes 11/18/2022 Page | 6
Director Hunter-Havens said Roger Wayne James presented to vote at the Senior
Resource Center on October 27, 2022. In error, the precinct official checked him in as
Roger Peter James and he cast ballot style B0001. He should have voted his correct
ballot style, B0003. On Election Day, Roger Peter James presented to vote in precinct
H11, was told he had already voted, and was offered the choice to vote a provisional
ballot, B0001, which he accepted.
[Member Kemp returned to the meeting at 12:10 p.m.]
Chair Carter moved to duplicate Roger Wayne James’s ballot, except for any contests for
which he was not eligible, on the correct ballot style, and accept the provisional ballot
cast by Roger Peter James, second by Member Hunter. Chair Carter called for any
discussion. After additional clarification, Chair Carter called the vote. Motion carried
unanimously.
Director Hunter-Havens asked for further direction from the Board on whether to remove
and deduct Roger Wayne James’s incorrect ballot and add back based on his duplicated
ballot, or to manually remove only the votes in the contest(s) for which he was not
eligible. Manual deduction is easier and more efficient.
Secretary Miller moved that the Board authorized the Director to do the manual
deduction, second by Chair Carter. After additional clarification, Chair Carter called the
vote. Motion carried unanimously.
(6) Absentee Ballot Challenge – Ronald Primus
Director Hunter-Havens said Ronald Primus cast an absentee by mail ballot returned on
October 6, 2022. On November 10, the office received the monthly notice from the NC
Department of Social Services showing that Mr. Primus died on October 23, 2022. SBE
guidance states that a ballot cast by a voter who dies after voting but before election day
is not counted.
Chair Carter moved to uphold the voter challenge, spoil the cast absentee ballot, and
deduct the votes as cast, second by Secretary Miller and Member Hunter. Hearing no
discussion, Chair Carter called the vote. Motion carried unanimously.
(2) Absentee Ballot Challenge – Michael Anthony Lloyd III
Chair Carter moved to return the Lloyd challenge back to the table for the Board’s further
consideration, second by Secretary Miller. Hearing no discussion, Chair Carter called the
vote. Motion carried unanimously.
Chair Carter called on Member Hunter for the results of her research. Member Hunter
said she did a voter search that returned two registrations, one for Michael Anthony
Lloyd, III, who was removed or inactive, and one for Michael Anthony Lloyd whose
voter history showed continuous registration since 1992 and most recent voter history in
2020. She said the information suggests to her that Mr. Lloyd is eligible to vote and his
UOCAVA ballot should be accepted and counted.
DRAFT
Board Minutes 11/18/2022 Page | 7
Chair Carter moved to count Mr. Lloyd’s UOCAVA ballot, second by Member Hunter.
After brief discussion, Chair Carter called the vote. Chair Carter, Secretary Miller,
Members Bryan and Hunter voted aye; Member Kemp voted nay. Motion carried by
majority vote.
Chair Carter said the review of the absentee ballot challenges is concluded.
b. Canvass of 2022 General Election
Chair Carter called on Deputy Director Dawkins for the reconciliation and voter history
report. She explained that the report is compiled from review of all data, all incident
reports, and all errors reports to match votes cast with voter history. The voter history
matched the tabulated results in 4 of 5 One Stop sites and 39 of 43 election day precincts.
The exceptions most frequently reflect election official and/or voter error in selecting the
wrong voter at check-in, failing to cancel a record properly when a check-in or printing
error occurred, and inserting absentee or provisional ballots in the DS200. Board actions
taken today reconcile the few instances that are not already explained by the
reconciliation report.
Director Hunter-Havens presented 6 machine-rejected ballots for Board decision to
authorize staff either to add the votes manually or duplicate the ballots for scanning and
tabulating. Member Kemp moved to authorize the staff to duplicate 6 machine-rejected
ballots, second by Member Bryan for discussion. After brief discussion, Chair Carter
called the vote. Members Bryan, Hunter and Kemp voted aye; Chair Carter and
Secretary Miller voted nay. Motion carried by majority vote.
The bipartisan duplication team proceeded to duplicate the 6 machine-rejected ballots,
subject to the Board’s final review and acceptance before tabulation.
Director Hunter-Havens reviewed proposed manual additions and deductions for Board
consideration that will make necessary corrections noted in the reconciliation report.
Member Hunter proposed that the Board consider the corrections for each voting site
separately. Chair Carter called for a motion to that effect.
Member Hunter moved to accept the proposed 4 manual additions as previously outlined
and authorize the staff to make those manual adjustments, second by Secretary Miller.
After a question, Member Hunter clarified the motion to accept the proposed 4 manual
additions affecting One Stop sites: 2 for Carolina Beach (CAB), 1 for Cape Fear
Community College (CFCC), and 1 for Senior Resource Center (SRC), second by
Secretary Miller. Chair Carter called for any discussion.
Member Kemp said he would like to see the ballots duplicated for comparison.
Hearing no further discussion, Chair Carter called the vote. Chair Carter, Secretary
Miller, Members Bryan and Hunter voted aye; Member Kemp voted nay. Motion carried
by majority vote.
Director Hunter-Havens said the 3 Election Day ballots that were machine-rejected are in
DRAFT
Board Minutes 11/18/2022 Page | 8
the process of being duplicated for the Board’s review. The Board paused the meeting to
wait for the completion of the duplicated ballots.
Secretary Miller asked the Director for the total number of ballots cast in this election in
this county. Director Hunter-Havens said there were over 94,300 total ballots cast.
Secretary Miller said the few absentee-by-mail ballots that required Board attention week
after week, the results of the sample hand-eye count confirming the machine totals, and
the small number of ballots from the One Stop and Election Day results that required
Board action demonstrate the high degree of reliability that we have in our elections, the
high degree of integrity of our elections, and diligent attention and multiple checks and
redundancies built into the process to assure accuracy. He said he would challenge
anyone who has expressed any doubts about the integrity of our elections to produce
evidence that can sustain public and judicial scrutiny. All this demonstrates the high
level of integrity of our elections. Chair Carter said he concurred with Secretary Miller’s
comments and pointed to the few irregularities that were found, all of which can be
explained as to how they occurred. He congratulated and thanked the staff for a job well
done.
Chair Carter asked Director Hunter-Havens if there are any other matters for the Board to
consider while the ballot duplication takes place. The Director said what remains to be
done is scan the duplicated ballots and make the authorized manual adjustments by
deducting the votes in the ineligible contests. Chair Carter said that seems reasonable,
called for a brief recess at 12:50 p.m., and excused the audience briefly while the room is
rearranged and the camera repositioned for scanning the ballots. The audience returned
at 1:10 p.m. and the Secretary Miller and Member Bryan began the review of the
duplicated ballots for accuracy as the bipartisan Board team. They completed the review
at 1:18 p.m. and scanning began.
Scanning and tabulating of the approved ballots was completed at 1:29 p.m. The Board
completed their review of the results reports for the supplemental absentee-by-mail
ballots and the Board-accepted One Stop and Election Day ballots at 1:36 p.m.
Chair Carter said that Deputy County Attorney Burpeau brought to his attention that it
would be a good idea, in an abundance of caution, to have Director Hunter-Havens sworn
in to attest the testimony she provided during the absentee ballot challenges. Since there
were no witnesses who appeared, the need for formalities is less necessary but still
advisable. Director Hunter-Havens took the oath verifying the truth of the information
she presented in those hearings, to the best of her knowledge.
Members Hunter and Kemp went with Director Hunter-Havens and staff to witness the
uploading of the final results to the State Board of Elections at 1:41 p.m.
Secretary Miller said he needed to leave for an appointment. Chair Carter moved to
approve the final canvass, second by Secretary Miller. Chair Carter, Secretary Miller and
Member Bryan voted aye. Chair Carter said he would hold the vote open for the return of
Members Hunter and Kemp to cast their vote. Secretary Miller will return later in the day
to sign the final canvass abstract. [Secretary Miller left the meeting at 1:50 p.m.]
DRAFT
Board Minutes 11/18/2022 Page | 9
Members Hunter and Kemp returned from observing the uploading of the final canvass
results to the State Board of Elections at 2:29 p.m. Chair Carter called the meeting order.
The Board completed their review of the final canvass results by contest, total canvass,
and each contest by precinct at 2:41 p.m. Each Board member will sign all 5 copies.
Chair Carter explained that there is a motion on the floor to approve the final canvass,
canvass results but held open to record the votes upon their return to the meeting.
Member Kemp said he noticed there is a copy of SBE Numbered Memo 2018-05 in the
packet for the pre-canvass meeting of November 17, addressing provisional ballots and
canvass procedures, but does not see it referenced in the packet for this meeting. Director
Hunter-Havens said 2018-05 is the last issued numbered memo, but the county boards of
elections have received supplemental and updated guidance. Numbered Memo 2018-05
remains in effect because it has not been replaced, but is modified by the type of
equipment now in use. Member Kemp cited 2018-05 on page 10 where it says
Statute provides that canvass is more than a pro forma meeting, nor is it a rubber-
stamping by[sic] the board staff’s preparatory work. Rather canvass is:
[T]he entire process of determining that the votes have been counted and
tabulated correctly, culminating in the authentication of the official election
results.
He said his thought is if the Board has begun voting to approve these documents, it gives
the appearance of pro forma approval. He said that is not his primary concern, which is
that the Board has a final reconciliation report of the results from the One Stop sites and
Election Day precincts, but no reconciliation of the weekly absentee-by-mail results. He
understands there is no week-to-week results report of the contests for technical and legal
reasons. He said he would like to see a summary of the accepted ballots by meeting date
and their total. He said he does not have anything to reconcile to the final canvass report.
Chair Carter said that the Board members have reviewed and signed weekly
certifications, which are internal documents. Staff has kept careful records, and he has as
well, which he reviewed and compared with the staff’s record at the pre-canvass meeting.
Chair Carter told Member Kemp he can request the weekly reports after this meeting.
Director Hunter-Havens said the weekly certifications reconciled the total absentee-by-
mail results against the total ballots scanned on the DS850. Jennifer Sparks, PrintElect,
said the final tabulation report incorporates the absentee-by-mail by precinct and
confirms the total. Member Kemp said he has no questions or problems with the total
results reported.
Chair Carter called on Members Hunter and Kemp for their votes on the motion on the
floor to approve the final canvass. Member Hunter voted aye; Member Kemp voted nay.
The Board members who voted in the affirmative signed five copies of supplemental
absentee abstract. Chair Carter said Secretary Miller will return to the office later in the
day to sign them.
Chair Carter moved to cancel the scheduled regular meeting on December 15, 2022,
second by Member Hunter. Hearing no discussion, Chair Carter called the vote. Chair
DRAFT
Board Minutes 11/18/2022 Page | 10
Carter, Members Hunter and Bryan voted aye; Member Kemp voted nay. Chair Carter
requested the Director send the appropriate notice of the cancellation of the meeting.
Chair Carter said that he understands Member Kemp voted not to approve the
reconciliation and canvass. The proper way to indicate his vote is not by writing that on
the signature page. Chair Carter said he is whiting out the notation Member Kemp made
on the signature pages.
Chair Carter asked Director Hunter-Havens to add an item of new business to the agenda
for the January regular meeting. He intends to draft a resolution governing Board-
member access to secure facilities for the Board’s consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Carter moved that the meeting be adjourned at 3:07 p.m., second by Member
Hunter. Motion carried unanimously.
The next Board meeting is scheduled to be held on January 10, 2023, at 5:15 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
Regular Meeting
New Hanover County Board of Elections
January 10, 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
January 10, 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 6th Period (December)
• Operating Expenses expended through FY22-23 6th Period (December)
• Grand Total expended through FY22-23 6th Period (December)
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 3,358 voters from the voter registration rolls from September to
December 2022 consistent with NC Gen. Stat. §163-82.14.
• Processed 6,343 new registration forms, 6,494 duplicate registration forms, and
8,744 registration updates from September to December 2022.
c. FY 23/24 Budget Development Snapshot
The continuation budget for FY23/24 is currently under development and will be submitted for
board review and approval at the February meeting. Below is a snapshot of key substantive
areas that are central to the successful administration of the 2023 Municipal Elections and 2024
Primary Election.
o One-Stop Voting: Staffing and Election Official Training Estimates
▪ 2023 Municipal Election- $89,315 for three (3) sites.
▪ 2024 Primary Election- $204,290 for five (5) sites. One-Stop voter turnout in
presidential primaries is significantly lower than in presidential general
elections. Operationally, we can optimally staff five sites to effectively meet the
demand for One-Stop voting in a presidential primary election.
o Absentee by Mail Voting: Printing, Postage, and Staffing
▪ 2023 Municipal Elections – Estimated costs based on 1,200 absentee by mail
requests.
▪ 2024 Primary Election- Estimated costs based on 15,000 absentee by mail
requests.
o Contracted Services: Budget allocation for additional administrative support from
casual part-time employees to assist with election official training, voting site support,
Item # 2 Item # 3
fulfillment of public records requests, including the in-person review of absentee
container return envelopes. The total number of hours may not increase overall but
the selection of support staff and assignment of tasks will be adjusted to respond to our
different operational needs in this area.
o Targeted Election Official Recruitment Mailings – Budget allocation for administrative
mailing to voters in precincts CF05, H01, H06, H08, H10, M03, M04, W12, W16, W17,
W28, W30 and W31 between the ages of 35 to 55 years of age who voted in the 2022
General Election. Estimated cost is $5,000.00. In comparison, the cost of the tax bill
insert was $5,230.08 but the timing of this mailing does not align with our window for
recruitment for the 2024 Presidential Election.
d. Possible Precinct Consolidations (W13/W24 and W32/W28)
Based on their small registration pool and consistently low voter turnout, precincts W13 and
W32 could afford to be consolidated with larger adjacent precincts that share the same
jurisdictional districts and also experience lower voter turnout. The consolidation of W13 with
W24 and W32 with W28 would reduce our operational costs without diminishing our capacity to
conduct safe and secure elections or provide a high level of customer service to voters in these
precincts. Below are the Election Day turnout statistics for these precincts in the last several
primary and general elections.
Precincts Registered
Voters
01.06.23
2022
General
2022
Primary
2020
General
2020
Primary
2018
General
2018
Primary
W13 2,324 234 70 234 263 317 65
W24 3,471 426 107 278 439 563 67
W28 3,964 601 193 420 656 697 178
W32 1.688 401 156 223 353 384 130
Average 4,221 856 410 394 741 781 246
Lowest (W32)
1,688
(W13)
234
(W13)
70
(H02)
204
(W13)
263
(W13)
317
(W13)
65
Highest (M04)
7,447
(M02)
1,817
(M02)
876
(H08)
736
(M02)
1,546
(M02)
1,574
(M02)
632
In addition, the consolidation of precincts in this manner would also impact election official
staffing and appointments moving forward. Each of the four precincts being discussed are
precincts where we have historically struggled to identify qualified, willing residents of the
precinct to work on Election Day. During the past several years, we have not been able to fully
and adequately appoint residents to the roles of Chief Judges and Judges in several of these
precincts, and nearly exclusively look to transfers to fill vacant positions and administrative roles
in these precincts. Currently, to adequately staff the four separate precincts you would need 12
appointed individuals, four chief judges and eight judges, as well as an additional 24-30
assistants to be assigned to administrative roles in service to voters. Consolidation would not
only alleviate some of the concerns regarding residency in the appointment process but it would
also relieve the taxation on our back-up pool of officials. Having a larger back-up pool of
qualified, trained election officials to call upon as we approach Election Day ensures that every
voter in the county has the same, positive, voting experience in fully-staffed precincts with
knowledgeable and capable election officials.
If the board would like to review this option in greater detail, I can add this matter as a new
business agenda item for the February board meeting.
Document/s Included:
Financial Year-To-Date Budget Report 6th Period (December); NVRA Report September to December
2022; NVRA Visualizations Report; NVRA Report Definitions
Board Action Required:
Discuss as necessary
NEW HANOVER COUNTY - LIVE
YEAR-TO-DATE BUDGET REPORT
Report generated: 01/06/2023 09:44User: rhavensProgram ID: glytdbud
Page 1
FOR 2023 06
ACCOUNTS FOR: ORIGINAL TRANFRS/ REVISED AVAILABLE PCT110 GENERAL FUND APPROP ADJSTMTS BUDGET YTD ACTUAL ENCUMBRANCES BUDGET USE/COL
16 BOARD OF ELECTIONS
10 CHARGES FOR SERVICES
11016102 400122 COUNTY CANDIDAT -15 0 -15 .00 .00 -15.00 .0%*
11016102 400165 FEES -153,901 0 -153,901 .00 .00 -153,901.00 .0%*
11016102 400370 PRINTING FEES -100 0 -100 .00 .00 -100.00 .0%*
TOTAL CHARGES FOR SERVICES -154,016 0 -154,016 .00 .00 -154,016.00 .0%
60 SALARIES & BENEFITS
11016100 610000 SALARIES AND WA 460,334 0 460,334 233,607.00 .00 226,727.00 50.7%
11016100 611500 CASUAL PART TIM 341,867 0 341,867 253,698.65 .00 88,168.35 74.2%
11016100 611600 OVERTIME PAY (O 8,227 0 8,227 8,323.81 .00 -96.81 101.2%*
11016100 621000 SOCIAL SECURITY 34,809 0 34,809 22,885.79 .00 11,923.21 65.7%
11016100 622000 RETIREMENT-LOCA 55,884 0 55,884 28,283.00 .00 27,601.00 50.6%
11016100 623500 GENERAL 401-K M 11,509 0 11,509 5,824.46 .00 5,684.54 50.6%
11016100 625000 MEDICAL INSURAN 76,216 0 76,216 32,660.94 .00 43,555.06 42.9%
11016100 626000 LONG TERM DISAB 1,243 0 1,243 375.61 .00 867.39 30.2%
TOTAL SALARIES & BENEFITS 990,089 0 990,089 585,659.26 .00 404,429.74 59.2%
70 OPERATING EXPENSES
11016100 700000 CONTR SERVS 191,057 0 191,057 203,044.43 34,449.94 -46,437.37 124.3%*11016100 700330 RENT 1,750 0 1,750 125.00 .00 1,625.00 7.1%11016100 700350 ADVERTISING COS 2,025 0 2,025 990.00 .00 1,035.00 48.9%11016100 700365 CELLULAR EXPENS 0 0 0 6,802.31 .00 -6,802.31 100.0%*11016100 700370 POSTAGE EXPENSE 38,980 0 38,980 21,643.96 .00 17,336.04 55.5%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 53,497.58 1,756.48 -459.06 100.8%*11016100 700512 PRINTER-COPIER 7,000 0 7,000 7,706.89 .00 -706.89 110.1%*11016100 700520 SUPPLIES 84,495 0 84,495 29,829.08 .00 54,665.92 35.3%11016100 700700 DUES & SUBSCRIP 470 0 470 99.99 .00 370.01 21.3%11016100 700825 EMPLOYEE REIMBU 250 0 250 1,384.68 .00 -1,134.68 553.9%*11016100 700905 TRAINING & TRAV 6,500 0 6,500 1,501.11 .00 4,998.89 23.1%
NEW HANOVER COUNTY - LIVE
YEAR-TO-DATE BUDGET REPORT
Report generated: 01/06/2023 09:44User: rhavensProgram ID: glytdbud
Page 2
FOR 2023 06
ACCOUNTS FOR: ORIGINAL TRANFRS/ REVISED AVAILABLE PCT110 GENERAL FUND APPROP ADJSTMTS BUDGET YTD ACTUAL ENCUMBRANCES BUDGET USE/COL
11016100 701050 INSURANCE&BONDS 66,326 0 66,326 22,839.20 .00 43,486.80 34.4%
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 504,503 0 504,503 402,861.98 36,206.42 65,434.60 87.0%
TOTAL BOARD OF ELECTIONS 1,340,576 0 1,340,576 988,521.24 36,206.42 315,848.34 76.4%
TOTAL GENERAL FUND 1,340,576 0 1,340,576 988,521.24 36,206.42 315,848.34 76.4%
TOTAL REVENUES -154,016 0 -154,016 .00 .00 -154,016.00
TOTAL EXPENSES 1,494,592 0 1,494,592 988,521.24 36,206.42 469,864.34
NEW HANOVER COUNTY - LIVE
YEAR-TO-DATE BUDGET REPORT
Report generated: 01/06/2023 09:44User: rhavensProgram ID: glytdbud
Page 3
FOR 2023 06
ORIGINAL TRANFRS/ REVISED AVAILABLE PCT APPROP ADJSTMTS BUDGET YTD ACTUAL ENCUMBRANCES BUDGET USE/COL
GRAND TOTAL 1,340,576 0 1,340,576 988,521.24 36,206.42 315,848.34 76.4%
** END OF REPORT - Generated by RAE HUNTER-HAVENS **
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS
NVRA REPORT
Reporting Period:-9/1/2022 12/31/2022
Totals
Active 155,889
Inactive 25,637
Total Registration 181,526
REPORTING PERIOD
Registrations Approved 6,877
Total Registrations Removed 3,358
Inactive Registrations Removed 779
New Registrations
00 - No Application Source 37
01 - Public Assistance 60
02 - Disability 3
03 - Other (ESC) 0
04 - Armed Forces 0
05 - DMV 3,073
06 - Mail-in 185
07 - In-person 1,607
08 - Library & High School 1
09 - Spanish Language Application 2
10 - Online Registration 920
17 - Registration Drives 431
21 - Medicaid Renewal 12
96 - Temporary FWAB Registrant 2
97 - Temporary FPCA Registrant 10
6,343
Duplicates
00 - No Application Source 19
01 - Public Assistance 22
02 - Disability 2
03 - Other (ESC) 0
04 - Armed Forces 0
05 - DMV 664
06 - Mail-in 3,447
07 - In-person 1,433
08 - Library & High School 0
09 - Spanish Language Application 0
10 - Online Registration 398
17 - Registration Drives 137
21 - Medicaid Renewal 11
95 - Voter Return of NCOA 36
96 - Temporary FWAB Registrant 3
97 - Temporary FPCA Registrant 45
98 - Voter Change On Confirmation 115
vtr_nvra_stat.rpt Page 1 of 5Jan 04, 2023 1:51 pm
NVRA REPORTNEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS
99 - Voter Change On Verification 162
6,494
vtr_nvra_stat.rpt Page 2 of 5Jan 04, 2023 1:51 pm
NVRA REPORTNEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS
Changes of Information
00 - No Application Source 66
01 - Public Assistance 44
02 - Disability 2
03 - Other (ESC) 0
04 - Armed Forces 0
05 - DMV 1,751
06 - Mail-in 1,820
07 - In-person 3,601
08 - Library & High School 1
09 - Spanish Language Application 1
10 - Online Registration 823
17 - Registration Drives 231
21 - Medicaid Renewal 11
95 - Voter Return of NCOA 54
96 - Temporary FWAB Registrant 0
97 - Temporary FPCA Registrant 139
98 - Voter Change On Confirmation 95
99 - Voter Change On Verification 105
8,744
Verifications
# of 1st & 2nd verification mailings sent 15,954
# of 1st NCOA mailings sent 0
# of 1st verification returned undeliverable 1,071
# of verification returned by voter 254
Confirmations
# of confirmations returned by voter 206
# of confirmations sent 849
# of confirmations returned undeliverable 2,047
# of confirmations not returned at all 127
COUNTY STATISTICAL
Constitution 0
Democratic 52,231
Green 24
Libertarian 1,545
Republican 54,562
Unaffiliated 73,164
American Indian 405
Asian 1,394
Black 19,881
Multi-Racial 933
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 12
White 139,029
Other 3,950
Undesignated 15,922
Hispanic 3,930
Not Hispanic 120,344
Undesignated 57,252
vtr_nvra_stat.rpt Page 3 of 5Jan 04, 2023 1:51 pm
NVRA REPORTNEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS
Female 88,492
Male 75,606
Undesignated 17,428
Unprocessed Registrations - Incomplete Queue
00 - No Application Source 9
01 - Public Assistance 14
02 - Disability 3
03 - Other (ESC) 0
04 - Armed Forces 0
05 - DMV 510
06 - Mail-in 84
07 - In-person 94
08 - Library & High School 0
09 - Spanish Language Application 4
10 - Online Registration 36
17 - Registration Drives 338
21 - Medicaid Renewal 3
95 - Voter Return of NCOA 6
96 - Temporary FWAB Registrant 0
97 - Temporary FPCA Registrant 20
98 - Voter Change On Confirmation 40
99 - Voter Change On Verification 24
Unprocessed Registrations - Archive Queue
00 - No Application Source 0
01 - Public Assistance 0
02 - Disability 0
03 - Other (ESC) 0
04 - Armed Forces 0
05 - DMV 1
06 - Mail-in 0
07 - In-person 1
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 2
96 - Temporary FWAB Registrant 0
97 - Temporary FPCA Registrant 0
98 - Voter Change On Confirmation 1
99 - Voter Change On Verification 0
Unprocessed Registrations - Review Queue
00 - No Application Source 9
01 - Public Assistance 11
02 - Disability 1
03 - Other (ESC) 0
04 - Armed Forces 0
05 - DMV 589
06 - Mail-in 16
07 - In-person 36
vtr_nvra_stat.rpt Page 4 of 5Jan 04, 2023 1:51 pm
NVRA REPORTNEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS
08 - Library & High School 0
09 - Spanish Language Application 0
10 - Online Registration 363
17 - Registration Drives 19
21 - Medicaid Renewal 1
96 - Temporary FWAB Registrant 1
97 - Temporary FPCA Registrant 0
vtr_nvra_stat.rpt Page 5 of 5Jan 04, 2023 1:51 pm
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000
APPROVED REG
REMOVED REG
NVRA Monthly Statistics: Total Removed and Approved Registrations
Jan-20 Feb-20 Mar-20 Apr-20 May-20 Jun-20 Jul-20 Aug-20 Sep-20 Oct-20 Nov-20 Dec-20
Jan-21 Feb-21 Mar-21 Apr-21 May-21 Jun-21 July-21 Aug-21 Sep-21 Oct-21 Nov-21 Dec-21
Jan-22 Feb-22 Mar-22 Apr-22 May-22 Jun-22 Jul-22 Aug-22 Sep-22 Oct-22 Nov-22 Dec-22
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000
NEW DMV REG
NEW REG ALL OTHERS
DMV DUPLICATES
ALL OTHER DUPLICATES
DMV INFO CHANGE
ALL OTHER INFO CHANGE
NVRA Monthly Statistics: Voter Registrations
Jan-20 Feb-20 Mar-20 Apr-20 May-20 Jun-20 Jul-20 Aug-20 Sep-20 Oct-20 Nov-20 Dec-20
Jan-21 Feb-21 Mar-21 Apr-21 May-21 Jun-21 July-21 Aug-21 Sep-21 Oct-21 Nov-21 Dec-21
Jan-22 Feb-22 Mar-22 Apr-22 May-22 Jun-22 Jul-22 Aug-22 Sep-22 Oct-22 Nov-22 Dec-22
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000 160000 180000 200000
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-20 Feb-20 Mar-20 Apr-20 May-20 Jun-20 Jul-20 Aug-20 Sep-20 Oct-20 Nov-20 Dec-20
Jan-21 Feb-21 Mar-21 Apr-21 May-21 Jun-21 July-21 Aug-21 Sep-21 Oct-21 Nov-21 Dec-21
Jan-22 Feb-22 Mar-22 Apr-22 May-22 Jun-22 Jul-22 Aug-22 Sep-22 Oct-22 Nov-22 Dec-22
NVRA
The SBE has an automated process, so there is no need to submit the report on a monthly
basis, it is available for counties that would like to run the report for informational use.
NVRA Report definitions:
Prior to reviewing the NVRA report the following items need to be considered
Statistics are based on a time period
Temporary voters are ignored in these statistics.
These are interpretations of the SEIMS NVRA reports, not anything generated
outside the SEIMS application.
See NVRA change explanation in the supplemental section.
Description Definition
Registrations
Approved
Number of verified voters during the time period. This is based
off the following verification description: ‘NEW VOTER:
VERIFIED’
Total Registrations
Removed
Number of voters that had their status changed to REMOVED
during the time period
Inactive
Registrations
Removed
Number of voters that had their status changed from INACTIVE
to REMOVED during the time period
Total Registrations
Removed
Number of voters that had their status changed to REMOVED
during the time period
New
Number of NVRA flagged new voter records by source code
during the time period. Sources ‘15’, ‘17’, ‘19’ are combined
into ‘05’, ‘07’, ‘09’ respectively. Sources ‘98’ and ‘99’ are
ignored because these are change source codes
Change
Number of NVRA flagged change voter records by source code
during the time period. Sources ‘15’, ‘17’, ‘19’ are combined
into ‘05’, ‘07’, ‘09’ respectively
Duplicate
Number of NVRA flagged duplicate voter records by source
code during the time period. Sources ‘15’, ‘17’, ‘19’ are
combined into ‘05’, ‘07’, ‘09’ respectively
Verification:# of 1st
& 2nd verification
mailings sent
This is based off the following verification descriptions: ‘NEW
VOTER: 1ST VERIFICATION PENDING’, ‘NEW VOTER: 2ND
VERIFICATION PENDING’, ‘VOTER CHG: 1ST VERIFICATION
PENDING’, ‘VOTER CHG: 1ST VERIFICATION PENDING’, ‘LIST
MAINT: 1ST VERIFICATION PENDING’
Verification:# of 1st
verification returned
undeliverable
Number of 1st verification mailings returned undeliverable to
the county during the time period. This is based off the
following verification descriptions: ‘NEW VOTER: ADDR
CONFIRMATION TO FWD ADDR (PRIOR TO MAILING)’, ‘NEW
VOTER: 2ND VERIFICATION (PRIOR TO MAILING)’, ‘VOTER
CHG: ADDR CONFIRMATION TO FWD ADDR (PRIOR TO
MAILING)’, ‘VOTER CHG: ADDR CONFIRMATION TO OLD ADDR
(PRIOR TO MAILING)
Verification:# of
verification returned
by voter
Number of verifications returned to the county by the voter
during the time period. This is based off of source code ‘99’
changes
Confirmation:# of
confirmations
returned by voter
Number of verifications returned to the county by the voter
during the time period. This is based off of source code ‘98’
changes
Confirmation:# of
confirmations sent
Number of verifications returned to the county by the voter
during the time period. This is based off of source code ‘98’
changes
Confirmation:# of
confirmations
returned
undeliverable
Number of confirmation mailings returned undeliverable to
the county during the time period. This is based off the reason
changes to ‘CONFIRMATION RETURNED UNDELIVERABLE’
Confirmation:# of
confirmations not
returned at all
Number of confirmation mailings not returned to the county at
all during the time period. This is based off the reason changes
to ‘CONFIRMATION NOT RETURNED’
Supplemental Explanation – NVRA Change/Duplicate Description
For 1/7/2012 forward:
NOTE: An NVRA Voter Change is marked if one of the following fields is changed (with
a non-administrative change).
Name
Mailing Address
Birth Date
Party
Residential Address
NOTE: An NVRA Duplicate is marked if a voter change occurs but was not one of the
fields indicated above to represent an NVRA change.
Prior to 1/7/2012:
NOTE: An NVRA Voter Change is marked if any of the fields below are updated for a
voter.
Drivers license
Gender
Confidential Flag
Race
Party
Precinct
Mailing Address
Status
Municipality
Phone number
Name
Ward
Birth date
Residential Address
SSN
NOTE: An NVRA Duplicate is flagged if none of the above occur, but one of the
following fields are changed:
Reason
Registration date
Source
Application date
Comments
Language
Regular Meeting
New Hanover County Board of Elections
January 10, 2023
Subject:
Adoption of Regular Meeting Schedule
Applicable Statutes and/or Rules
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-318.12(a)
Summary:
By statute, the Board may adopt a schedule of regular business meetings. The schedule implemented by
this board in 2022 called for regular business meetings on the Tuesday following the second Monday of
each month at 5:15 PM. Also included on the proposed regular meeting calendar are special meetings.
Board members are required to attend special meetings, in accordance with Chapter 163 of the NC
General Statutes, to review absentee ballot applications, count approved absentee ballots, and conduct
the county canvass.
Document/s Included:
2023 Schedule of Meetings; 2023 Board of Elections Calendar
Board Action Required:
Board Action Required
Item # 2 Item # 4a
3NOTICE OF MEETINGS
In accordance with N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-318.12(a), the New Hanover County Board of Elections will meet on
the Tuesday following the second Monday of each month at 5:15 PM unless otherwise noted on the schedule
below. All meetings are held at 1241 A Military Cutoff Road, Wilmington, NC 28405, unless otherwise noted in
the board meeting notice. The schedule for all meetings in 2023 is as follows:
Date Type Time Purpose
1/ 10/ 2023 Regular 5:15 P.M. Conduct business as needed
2/ 14/ 2023 Regular 5:15 P.M. Conduct business as needed
3/ 14/ 2023 Regular 5:15 P.M. Conduct business as needed
4/ 11/ 2023 Regular 5:15 P.M. Conduct business as needed
5/ 09/ 2023 Regular 5:15 P.M. Conduct business as needed
6/ 13/ 2023 Regular 5:15 P.M. Conduct business as needed
7/ 18/ 2023 Special 12:00 P.M. Administrations of Oaths
8/ 22/ 2023 Special TBD Chief Judge/Judge Appointments 23-25
9/ 12/ 2023 Regular 5:15 P.M. Conduct business as needed
10/ 03/ 2023 Special 5:00 P.M. Absentee Review Meeting
10/ 10/ 2023 *Special 5:00 P.M. Absentee Review Meeting
10/ 17/ 2023 Special 5:00 P.M. Absentee Review Meeting
10/ 24/ 2023 Special 5:00 P.M. Absentee Review Meeting
10/ 31/ 2023 Special 5:00 P.M. Absentee Review Meeting
11/ 06/ 2023 Special 5:00 P.M. Absentee Review Meeting
11/ 07/ 2023 Special TBD Count Absentee Ballots
11/ 14/ 2023 Regular 5:15 P.M. Conduct business as needed
11/ 16/ 2023 Special TBD Count Absentee & Provisional Ballots
11/ 17/ 2023 Special 11:00 A.M. County Canvass of Election Results
12/ 12/ 2023 Regular 5:15 P.M. Conduct business as needed
* Denotes a regular meeting that falls on the date of a special meeting required by statute
If any meetings of the Board of Elections are added to this calendar, or cancelled, notice will be provided.
For more details on the Board of Elections, please call 910-798-7330 or visit our website at nhcvote.com.
Legend
Holidays Absentee One-Stop Voting Voter Registration Deadline
Regular Board Meeting Election Day Voting * Absentee Meetings
Canvass Special Meeting: Board Member Oaths Special Meeting: CJ/Judge Appointment
2023
JANUARY
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31
FEBRUARY
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28
MARCH
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31
APRIL
S M T W T F S
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30
MAY
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31
JUNE
S M T W T F S
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30
JULY
S M T W T F S
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31
AUGUST
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31
SEPTEMBER
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
OCTOBER
S M T W T F S
1 2 *3 4 5 6 7
8 9 *10 11 12 13 14
15 16 *17 18 19 20 21
22 23 *24 25 26 27 28
29 30 *31
NOVEMBER
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4
5 *6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 *16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30
DECEMBER
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
Regular Meeting
New Hanover County Board of Elections
January 10, 2023
Subject:
Chair Carter’s request to discuss proposed resolution regarding board member access to secure areas.
Summary:
Chair Carter has requested a new business item to discuss board member access to secure areas.
Document/s Included:
Proposed Resolution regarding board member access to secure areas (provided at meeting)
Board Action Required:
Discuss As Necessary
Item # 2 Item # 4b
Regular Meeting
New Hanover County Board of Elections
January 10, 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