A North Carolina State Election Board member raised concerns on Wednesday about the possibility of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, US Customs and Border Protection, and troops being sent to polling places in November for the General Election.
Democrat member Siobhan Millen made a motion at the board’s meeting that the board’s staff prepare guidance for counties to help them handle troops at the polls, ballot seizure requests, and other threats to the good order of the polls.
She said she made the motion after seeing ballot seizures in Fulton County, Georgia; and Riverside County, California, and from comments made by White House border czar Tom Homan and US Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche.
“It’s our job to protect the polls in North Carolina, so serious leadership on our part will be to get ready,” she told board members and staff. “I just want to make sure that we give guidance on how are we are going to make sure that the law is followed in November, and how we are going to train counties if somebody comes and asks for their ballots.”
Republican board member and secretary Stacey “Four” Eggers IV told Millen that the items listed in her motion are already prohibited by state and federal law. While Millen agreed that was correct, she was still concerned that county boards may not know what to do if they are faced with armed troops.
“Do you have reason to believe that that’s going to be the case in six months?” Eggers asked Millen.
“As I said, Mr. Blanche and Mr. Homan in our federal government have said they don’t see what’s wrong with it, and it has not been denied,” she replied. “I’m fearful of that, sure, but I think that those statements are out there and we’re foolish to ignore them.
Democrat member Jeff Carmon seconded Millen’s motion.
“It’s better to prepare for a storm and the storm not come versus we get here in early voting, and we have a substantial amount of new directors, substantial amount of new board members, and that they are relying on us to give them the framework of how to address any issues that can pop up,” Carmon said.
Millen added that what they could be doing is prepare a preliminary injunction before the election that would bar seizure of ballots unless the court issuing the warrant sees significant proof of wrongdoing or they could train county boards on how to comply with a valid warrant and how to limit the scope of a dubious warrant or how to keep custody and allow the feds in to look at them.
Eggers asked her whether she was envisioning a scenario where they would give guidance to the county boards that if there is an order by a federal judge that they would not comply with it. Millen replied no, but they could contact their attorney.
“I think we do have a process where counties can reach out through the help desk and other items either on Election Day or during early voting,” Eggers said. “I’m not sure if this is necessary, to single out for special treatment as opposed to hurricanes, floods, fires, mobs, whatever it might be.”
Republican board member Angela Hawkins, who worked in several election-based roles over the past 30 years, including most recently being a member, chair, and secretary of the Wake County Board of Elections, said she agreed with Eggers, as she was familiar with chief judges and poll workers, and that they have those measures in place and know what to do.
“Okay, I just think it’s better to be prepared,” Millen said. “I think we’re in uncharted territory with these kinds of, I won’t call them threats, but suggestions of things that might happen, and with ballot seizures happening, which I don’t ever remember in my lifetime. So I think we’re in uncharted territory.”
Republican member and board chair Francis De Luca told the board that they “have to be careful of preparation verging on the edge of fear mongering.”
Eggers chimed in that he didn’t think that any of the chief judges or county directors would allow someone to walk into a polling place and walk off with the ballot box.
“Yes, I agree with you, but would they allow a phalanx of troops in the parking lot outside their polling place, and what are they going to do about it if that happens?” Millen asked.
The motion failed, with Millen and Carmon voting in favor, and Eggers, De Luca, and Hawkins voting against.
Absentee ballot deficiency rules
The board voted unanimously on Absentee Ballot Deficiency rules. Absentee ballot deficiencies occur after a ballot gets returned from the voter to the county board. If approved, the rules would be added to Chapter 18 of Title 8.
The rules will be filed with the Rules Review Commission by Friday, with a comment period from May 15 to July 14, and a public hearing will be held within that timeframe. The state board would meet between July 15 and 20 so that they can be submitted to the Rules Review Commission by July 20, which would discuss them at an Aug. 27 meeting. The rules would then go into effect on Sept. 1.
voting site electioneering rules
The board voted 3-2 along party lines to submit Voting Site Electioneering Rules for public comment, with Millen and Carmon voting no and Eggers, De Luca, and Hawkins voting yes.
The rules are for conduct outside of the poles at a voting site. The same process for Absentee Ballot Deficiency Rules will be followed.
absentee and in-person voting photo id rules
The board also voted 3-2, along party lines, to revise the Absentee and In-Person Voting Photo ID Rules.
When the rules were originally adopted, the deadline for a voter to return with their photo ID to the county board office if one wasn’t presented at the time of voting was changed from 5pm the day before the canvas to noon on the Friday after Election Day. The first revision would just point to the statute on the rule in case the deadline changes in the future.
The second change involves how votes are counted in-person with a provisional ballot. A voter could say that they would return with their photo ID and vote provisionally. A second option is for a voter to fill out a photo ID exception form and vote provisionally. The rules structure before the exception form was first followed by showing your ID. The revised version just changes the order.
The final change involves when a county board finds a photo ID exception form to be false. The current rule requires a unanimous vote. The revised rule would change it to a majority vote, and a majority of the board would be required to initiate the process with the voter by sending them a notice.
Carmon stated that the reasons for unanimity were to prevent any partisan play so the majority of the board couldn’t just vote party line but actually had to address the issue. He said he would like the original version to stand.
Eggers said the change would be more consistent with the statute.
Carmon and Millen voted no, and Eggers, De Luca, and Hawkins voted yes. The revised rules will also be going out for public comment.
