Proposed Bullet Comments From NCEIT Leadership-

Customize and Submit

(If we all submit the same comment, they count them as one. Rewrite any one of these points below for each of the (3) rules and submit by this Wednesday, December 20th) Thank you!

Bullett Points on NCSBE

Proposed Temp Rules (Dec 2023)

Proposed Rule - 08 NCAC 20.0101

Challenge to the Appontment of an Observer

*Inappropriately consolidates the challenge rule for Board of Elections members and Judges into one rule instead of separate rules with unique procedures for each

*The rule fails to articulate what constitutes specified reasonable grounds for challenging a poll observer's appointment as outlined in &163-45.1 (f) of S.L.2023-23-140.

*For a challenge hearing to follow due process and to comport with the intent of &163-45.1 (c) the hearing must be convened in advance of the scheduled period of poll observation service.

*The rule fails to establish criterion for Boards of Election to use in adjudicating challenges and fails to indicate whether a unanimous vote is required to uphold the challenge.

*It seems appropriate for the NCSBE only to adjudicate appeals of challenges to state party - or statewide candidate -appointed poll observers.

*The proposed rule lacks discussion of permanent or persistent challenge of a poll observer; nor are there any criteria for preventing a challenged poll observer from returning to poll observer duties on a subsequent day or at an alternative site during the same election cycle.

Proposed Rule; 08 NCAC 20.0102 (Appeal of an Observer from a Voting Site)

 *The removal of an appointed poll observer is a serious step that potentially leaves a party or candidate blind to the activities inside a voting enclosure.

*This rule should prescribe an escalation process that serves due process and maintains election integrity.

*The rule should first establish a process for an informal hearing by all three judges present to prevent partisan influence on the decision to expel an observer, short of law enforcement action (which is always an option at the discretion of the Chief Judge).

The appointing authority should notify the poll observer who has allegedly violated statutory guidelines and will be subject to an immediate informal hearing in or near the voting enclosure, away from the voting process.

*If all three judges at a precinct or early voting site concur that a removal is the appropriate recourse, then the local appointing authority would be afforded the ability to replace the observer.

*If a ruling is not unanimous to remove a poll observer during the informal hearing, the observer should be allowed to remain on site, subject to close observation by the judges.

*If a poll observer is removed during the hearing, a written record of the removal should be documented, signed off by all judges at the voting site, with a copy provided to the appointing authority.

*Appeals of a poll observer's removal past beyond the informal hearing are fruitless in that the removal has already occurred and cannot by timely reversed.

*At early voting sites located within the local Election Office, where there are no judges present, the challenge of a poll observer should come from the Site Administrator, member of the Elections Office, or a member of the Board of Elections.

*In poll observers challenges at BOE Early Voting sites, the informal hearing should be adjudicated by the Site Administrator, a senior member of the Elections Officer, and one member of the local Board of Elections.

*Nowhere in the proposed rule is there discussion of the possibility for permanent or indefinite removal of a poll observer, nor are there any criteria for preventing a removed poll observer from returing for poll observer duties on a subsequent day or at an alternative site during the same election cycle.

*The proposed rule should prescribe any criteria that would prevent a removed poll observer from being rescheduled for subsequent duties. (There is little doubt that candidates or political parties will seek to reinstate any removed poll observer as soon as possible.)

*The citation in 08 NCAC 20.0102 (a) referring NCGS 150B-51(b) is only suitable for judicial hearings by a court of law.

*NCSBE should consider setting a threshold of "law enforcement action taken" or "conviction of

election violation" as beimg standards for indefinite or permanent removal of a poll observer.

Proposed Rule-08 NCAC 20.0103 (Identification of Observers)

*The statute clearly indicates the Chief Judge may use reasonable methods to verify the identity of individuals appearing at the voting place to serve as an observer, but the verification of the identification ends when the observer produces a valid ID upon arrival

*There shoud be no requirement for a poll observer to identify his or her name or political party within the voting enclosure.

*This rule should be deleted as the statute is already clear that Poll Observers are to be identified only as their position or role in the voting enclosure - not by their name or political party.