The question of whether county commission prospect Melissa Gott is a true resident of the address she claims in New Hanover County will go to a full blown hearing, the New Hanover County Board of Elections has ordered.
The board expects to take up the matter Oct. 30 following a unanimous decision Tuesday during a preliminary hearing with evidence and testimony that presumed Gott does not truly reside at 602 Chestnut St. in Wilmington.
Gott, who earlier this month became the New Hanover County Republican Party’s nominee to fill a vacancy on the county commission, has listed that address for her voter registration since 2003 and has cast ballots in elections as such since 2004. Her residency fell under question after a neighbor of the Chestnut Street property alleged Gott only uses it professionally, as her law office.
“She does not live there,” that neighbor, Carolyn Caldwell, reiterated to the elections board Tuesday.
Gott was not present for the preliminary hearing, prompted by a challenge that resident Justin LaNasa filed against Gott per the uncertainty about her residency.
LaNasa, also a Republican, submitted to the board a copy of an electricity bill connected to a Brunswick County house Gott and her husband own. After additionally supplying the board a copy of his own home’s electricity usage for comparison, LaNasa told the board his conclusion was the Brunswick County house was occupied and likely Gott’s primary residence.
“It’s only common sense, sir,” LaNasa told board chairman Tommy Guinn.
But Gott, who said previously she and her husband own multiple properties, has insisted her Wilmington address is her domicile.
According to North Carolina’s constitution, a voter must “be a resident of the state and the electoral district one is voting in.” Further, law requires each of-age citizen to have only one domicile for voting purposes.
At the hearing ahead, Gott will have the chance to defend herself against LaNasa and others who, under oath Tuesday, testified Gott is not a resident of the address she claims.
“Just investigate,” neighborhood resident Pat DeYoung told the elections board. “She doesn’t live there.”
But the elections board will not be the investigative authority in this case. Per law, it will only judge the challenge brought forward by LaNasa, who may have additional witnesses and evidence to submit.
LaNasa told the elections board the investigation on his part will be difficult as he does not wear a badge and will be limited in the depth of information he might obtain.
The motion to proceed to a full hearing came from elections board member Bill Kopp, whose integrity on the matter was called to question during Tuesday’s preliminary session.
After LaNasa asked all three board members whether they knew Gott in some way, Kopp said he had indeed known her for eight years and had employed her legal skills in a real estate transaction.
Kopp declined LaNasa’s request that he recuse himself, reasoning he would vote without bias in the interest of his reputation.
As for Gott, Kopp said he believed she would welcome the probe if her residency is indeed valid.
“If I were the person, I would want that,” said Kopp. “I would want to clear my name.”
After the preliminary hearing Tuesday the board continued conversation about what might happen to Gott’s registration, with members noting that the law isn’t so black and white. Elections law defines one’s “domicile” as “the place to which the person intends to return,” meaning someone who owns multiple properties throughout the state or country can pick one of them for voting purposes–provided the voter is registered only in that locality and indeed intends to return to it to live.
Kopp said for the Oct. 30 hearing he would want harder evidence on the matter so the board could pass solid judgment. At stake is Gott’s entire registration in New Hanover County.
“More than hearsay,” Kopp said of the evidence he’ll want to see or hear. “I don’t know how to get that.”
Contact Ben Brown at [email protected] or (910) 772-6335. On Twitter: @benbrownmedia
