Bipartisan election officials warn NC GOP changes could cause disruption at the polls
A bipartisan group of senior county election officials cautioned legislators that pending bills could cause significant disruptions to voting, threatening the very election integrity that the bills are supposed to address.
Sixteen Republicans and 16 Democrats serving on county boards of elections sent a letter to lawmakers raising concerns about a number of election proposals, including plans to give poll observers more freedom, make more voters cast provisional ballots and change the hiring structure for election directors.
“Some of the current proposals, if implemented, may have unintended consequences that can harm rather than protect the integrity of our elections,” the letter, signed by Republican John Shallcross, president of the Election Boards Association of North Carolina, said.
Republican leaders have argued that reforms are needed to maintain election integrity.
“This bill aims to restore voter confidence and get us to a place where everyone can believe in our election outcomes,” Sen. Paul Newton, a Mount Pleasant Republican, said of one measure.
Seven incumbent members of the association’s executive committee signed on to the letter, as well as 25 of the state’s longest-serving county board members.
A spokesperson for Senate leader Phil Berger confirmed he and several other members of the caucus had received the letter.
“Updating the state’s election software is an area of agreement between both the House and Senate,” Lauren Horsch, Berger’s spokesperson, said. “Bill sponsors had robust discussions with Democrats that led to amendments to Senate Bills 747 and 749, and they welcome feedback from elections officials across the state.”
Partisan observers at the polls
The letter said that House Bill 772, which would allow up to 12 partisan poll observers broad access to voting enclosures and the ability to take photos and videos, would be “disruptive, impossible to supervise, and increase rather than reduce voters’ concerns about secure and secret balloting.”
Sara LaVere, president of the North Carolina Association of Directors of Elections, said she shared some of the same concerns.
“A lot of polling places as is, are not very large,” she told The News & Observer. “...If you add up to 12 additional people in the polling place, I think that’s going to be a real challenge.”
The same bill would make denying access to poll observers a Class 1 misdemeanor.
“We encourage you to contact your county election staff about the consequences of that provision for recruiting poll workers,” the letter said.
HB 772 is currently in the House Rules Committee and has not gotten a floor vote.
Provisional ballots and funding for elections
Several provisions in Senate Bill 747, an elections omnibus bill passed by the Senate last month, could increase the number of provisional ballots that counties have to validate before counting. The letter said this would “require substantial new funding to implement.”
Under the bill, most voters using same-day registration during early voting would have to cast a provisional ballot unless they bring certain identifying documents to the polling place.
LaVere said counties would need more employees to process the influx of provisional ballots and “all of that equates to money, which a lot of county boards are struggling with.”
Lawmakers have not guaranteed that election boards will get more money to implement these changes in the coming budget, but the officials said there were some promising signs.
“We are also both hopeful and thankful for indications that the final budget will include significant funds to modernize SEIMS (the state’s election software infrastructure) and support the technical staff who provide vital assistance to county boards across the state,” it said.
The last proposal the letter raises concerns about is a portion of Senate Bill 749, which would significantly change the structure of state and local election boards. One such change would be making election directors hired by county commissioners, rather than county boards of elections. Given that directors must oversee the elections of the very commissioners who hired them, some have cautioned that this could create conflicts of interest.
“If we’re auditing the report of someone who holds the keys to our job, I think that could make some people uncomfortable,” said LaVere, who is also the director of elections in Brunswick County.
The letter suggested that the previous hiring structure remain, or that the commissioners be allowed to appoint an interim director if the board can’t reach a decision within 90 days.
This story was originally published July 14, 2023 at 11:32 AM.
