NEW HANOVER COUNTY — The New Hanover County Board of Elections presented a united front Tuesday night, despite accusations that it has broken state law and an election protest filed the same day.
READ MORE: NHC elections board advised to seek legal counsel, Tuesday meeting moved to larger space
Commissioner Dane Scalise submitted an election protest — which concerns conduct of an election — as a follow-up to his legal complaint issued over the weekend. Scalise is the tentative second-place finisher in a tight race that hinges on the several thousand uncounted ballots — whose total has now risen once again.
“We filed this protest to make clear that we expect immediate answers and action from the state and local BOEs,” he told Port City Daily Tuesday night.
At Tuesday’s meeting, Director Rae Hunter-Havens reported uncounted absentee ballots rose to 1,912 — 162 more than reported on Nov. 8, though less will be accepted after verification due to discrepancies. The provisional ballots number has now risen to 1,970. Only 249 votes separate the commissioner race’s last winner and first loser, while 622 votes separate the same spots in the school board contest.
Scalise’s protest alleges there has been a defect in the way votes were counted “sufficient to cast doubt on the apparent results of the election.” It also accuses the board of violating state law with its decision to delay counting absentee ballots received between Oct. 31 and Election Day until Nov. 14.
As county leadership, namely County Manager Chris Coudriet, has pointed out in the days following the election, this “administrative cutoff” seems to run afoul of state law. General Statute 163‑234 indicates “absentee ballots received prior to election day shall be counted on election day.”
Coudriet wrote in an email to county commissioners Monday the county attorney has recommended the elections office to retain outside legal counsel regarding the potential violation. Elections board member Bruce Kemp told PCD this topic was discussed during Tuesday night’s closed session, but it’s not something he could comment on.
The cutoff decision has faced intense scrutiny from county leadership and the public, so much so that Tuesday’s meeting was moved to a larger space. Roughly 30 people were in attendance.
The board did not address Scalise’s protest at the meeting and the potential state law violation wasn’t addressed until board chair Derrick Miller opened the meeting to public questions. An audience member asked the board to clarify how the administrative cutoff complied with the statute.
“I know there are people alleging that our practice does not comply with the law; we believe we followed to the best of our understanding of state board guidance, and these questions will continue to be hashed out,” Miller said.
The State Board of Elections has denied signing off on the administrative cutoff.
No other board member, nor Hunter-Havens, spoke on the subject Tuesday. After the meeting, both Miller and Hunter-Havens refused to elaborate on the discrepancy or state guidance they received.
All eyes are on the remaining ballots because they could determine two New Hanover County races — commissioners and school board.
While Election Day results are unofficial until canvass, races can typically be called before the certification 10 days later. But the commissioners remain up in the air due to the tight margins and high number of uncounted ballots, a total that could have been influenced by the administrative cutoff.
Though North Carolina law now requires mail-in absentee ballots to be in board of elections possession by 7:30 p.m. on Election Day, some ballots do arrive after the deadline. Most of these would be considered ineligible, except for overseas citizen and military ballots, accepted until 5 p.m. on the day before canvass, which is Friday, Nov. 15.
Hunter-Havens said the absentee total could continue to rise, but based on the multiple-staff-member review, her team is looking to recommend 1,474 absentee ballots for approval by the board.
The director elaborated on the other 438 ballots: 335 are in “affidavit pending status,” meaning the ballot appears to be complete, but the voter included a photo ID exception form, warranting further verification, while 90 are in pending status due to deficiencies, mainly unsealed envelopes.
There have been 13 ballots that have been cured of deficiencies so far. These ballots will be opened and counted on Nov. 14.
As for the unsealed ballots, Hunter-Havens said guidance from the State Board of Elections states her team should seal the ballot and then ask the local board for authorization to open and review them further at a public board meeting.
Moving to provisional ballots, Hunter-Havens reported her staff has researched their validity to prepare review at the board’s Nov. 14 meeting. Of those, her team is recommending 474 for approval at this time and 90 are still pending per state guidance. The rest, 1,195, are not recommended for approval.
“The most common reason is the voters not registered, or they were removed and didn’t register,” Hunter-Havens said. “So we exhaustively tried to look for all sources of registration information. If a voter has submitted a timely application — let’s say it was incomplete in that provisional application — that satisfies the deficiency, then that ballot will be recommended for approval.”
The board of elections also conducts daily list maintenance during the voting period to ensure ballots are valid. Hunter-Havens said so far there are 13 challenges for felony convictions, six with reason to believe the voter was deceased before Election Day, and roughly 230 same-day registration challenges mainly due to a need for mailing address confirmation. The voters being challenged have been notified, according to Hunter-Havens, and will be given the opportunity to present their information and defend their voter eligibility.
Chair Miller made it clear the board stands behind the actions of staff, putting forth a motion to affirm “election staff are counting votes fairly and accurately, and we have observed the process closely, and further, that we commend our election staff for their excellent work and dedication.” It passed unanimously.
Miller further commented that the uncounted ballots are secure and the chain of custody has been maintained, along with the assurance all eligible votes would be counted.
However, Miller did admit, in response to a complaint lodged by school board candidate David Perry — who’s tentatively in third place in the race — the board could have been more transparent in the last week-and-a-half. Miller stated he advised the county BOE to prioritize urgent matters in preparation for Friday’s canvass, which could have been misinterpreted, leading to a lower prioritization of communication.
Perry stated during public comment the board should have informed the public of the administrative cutoff before it happened, as the delayed transparency contributed to the controversy that arose over it.
“We sow distrust when we do not tell the public what we do and when we do our business behind closed doors,” Perry said. “We are supposed to be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, but we cannot be if we’re doing it in secret.”
Democratic Party Chair Jill Hopman took the mic to express her support of the board of elections, claiming they were not given adequate resources to conduct this election.
“They had to deal with the new voter ID law, an explosion in curbside voting which they did not have the staffing, the signage, or traffic planning to handle,” Hopman started. “The BOE has a huge responsibility of limited resources and personnel.”
Hopman laid the blame at state Republicans and the county commissioners’ feet.
Derrick Bowens, former NHC elections director, weighed in virtually to throw in his support for more funding, saying “more staff is needed.”
President of the North Carolina NAACP Deborah Dicks Maxwell echoed Hopman’s sympathies, saying the BOE is one of the most “underrated” boards in the county and lacks necessary funding.
“If you want something,” Maxwell said, “you must also provide more funding for something.”
After the meeting, PCD asked Maxwell to expand on what she believes needs to be changed in the current funding.
“This is the time of year to ask Santa Claus for things like this,” Maxwell said.
She did not elaborate further but did comment on her own experience with curbside voting, saying the extensive lines were “traffic hazards,” a point frequently mentioned by public commenters and the board director.
During the meeting’s financial update, Hunter-Havens stated that the curbside voting turnout forced the BOE to contract out extra help for parking and other “elections processes,” which could result in the county elections team exceeding its predicted budget, but that won’t be confirmed until next month’s regular meeting.
There have been differing interpretations of the county’s funding of the board of elections over the last several years. Per information provided by county spokesperson Alex Riley, the county has increased the BOE’s budget in fiscal years 2024 and 2025.
For the fiscal year spanning 2023 and 2024, the board of elections requested $1.93 million, which would have been an almost 30% increase from the previous year. The county provided $1.7 million, a 14% increase.
However, the board of elections’ budget was revised to allow for the spending of $1.88 million, nearly $100,000 more than was originally approved. Riley told Port City Daily, the excess was due to the second primary election in May (fiscal years begin July 1).
The cost of the secondary primary was a one-time spend, not budgeted for this fiscal year, 2025.
The BOE asked for $1.84 million in FY25 and the county landed on allocated $1.78 million. This is a 4.45% increase compared to the previous year’s adopted budget, but a 5.3% decrease from the revised budget from FY24.
In an email to Coudriet, county budget officer Amanda Kostusiak said “comparing revised budgets to adopted budgets doesn’t provide an accurate year-over-year comparison.” In general, revised budgets can include grants or state mandates or even net reductions, she explained.
Still, Riley defended the discrepancy, telling PCD the county was not “made aware of any inadequate funding that would interfere with the Board of Elections’ ability to perform their duties.” This matches statements made by Hunter-Havens in the spring budget talks where she said there would be no issues with staffing for the entire length of early voting.
The BOE has made two funding requests in FY25, a $17,000 ask for software that would not have been implemented until January 2025, and an increase to staff salaries $48,050. These were not agreed to by the county.
Riley explained why pay was not increased: “The countywide cost-of-living wage increases were applicable to Board of Elections staff, thus any further increase was deemed duplicative. The county underwent a pay study two years ago that was applicable to all employees and thus management believed their pay was appropriate.”
In her memo to Coudriet, Kostusiak said the board of elections did not request additional workers in FY25.
Coudriet replied: “To continue with my thoughts, I don’t believe the outstanding absentee ballots are outstanding because of resources or the lack thereof.”
Board member Kemp weighed in on the budget analysis after the meeting, saying, from his understanding, there were items the board wanted to request more funding for, but didn’t, and decided to just take what they could get. Kemp cited “an effort to reduce” the amount they had already asked for — the $65,050 more for staffing and software — as the reason behind not pushing for more, potentially needed resources. When asked if he could elaborate on the missing items, he said: “No, I should not.”
However, some members of the audience were not satisfied with information, or lack thereof, provided Tuesday night.
“That meeting was just kind of kissing the board of elections backside, saying that they did a great job,” one attendee, Elizabeth, said (she asked media to refrain from printing her last name). “If they did such a great job, we all wouldn’t be here.”
The board of elections meets at 1241A Military Cutoff Road at 2 p.m. on Thursday to count absentee and provisional ballots and there again Friday to canvass results, at 11 a.m.
[Editor’s Note: This article has been updated after press as more information on the county’s BOE funding has come to light.]
Tips or comments? Email info@portcitydaily.com
Want to read more from PCD? Subscribe now and then sign up for our morning newsletter, Wilmington Wire, and get the headlines delivered to your inbox every morning.
