by Diane Rufino, August 26, 2018
This overview is written for the purpose of educating North Carolina voters on the six proposed amendments to the North Carolina state constitution.
I. WHAT YOU WILL SEE ON THE BALLOT: The following will likely be the language you will see on November’s ballot with respect to the six (6) proposed amendments to the North Carolina constitution. I say “likely” because two of the amendments (#3 and #4 below) were challenged by Governor Roy Cooper and a federal judge granted his injunction – meaning that absent a challenge by the legislature that is successful OR having the legislature re-drafting them, those amendments, as originally written and communicated, cannot appear on November’s ballot. Amendments #3 and #4 below contain the re-drafted language, as of August 24, but we don’t know yet if Cooper will re-challenge.
So, as of today (Aug. 26), the language you will likely see on November’s ballot regarding the proposed amendments to the NC state Constitution is as follows:
Amendment 1: [ ] For [ ] Against
Constitutional amendment protecting the right of the people to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife.
Amendment 2: [ ] For [ ] Against
Constitutional amendment to strengthen protections for victims of crime; to establish certain absolute basic rights for victims; and to ensure the enforcement of these rights.
Amendment 3: [ ] For [ ] Against
Constitutional amendment to establish an eight-member Bipartisan Board of Ethics and Elections Enforcement in the Constitution to administer ethics and elections law.
Amendment 4: [ ] For [ ] Against
Constitutional amendment to change the process for filling judicial vacancies that occur between judicial elections from a process in which the Governor has sole appointment power to a process in which the people of the State nominate individuals to fill vacancies by way of a commission comprised of appointees made by the judicial, executive, and legislative branches charged with making recommendations to the legislature as to which nominees are deemed qualified; then the legislature will recommend nominees to the Governor via legislative action not subject to gubernatorial veto; and the Governor will appoint judges from among these nominees.
Amendment 5: [ ] For [ ] Against
Constitutional amendment to reduce the income tax rate in North Carolina to a maximum allowable rate of seven percent.
Amendment 6: [ ] For [ ] Against
Constitutional amendment to require voters to provide photo identification before voting in person.
II. WHAT THE AMENDMENTS MEAN and WHAT THEY SEEK TO ACHIEVE: The NC legislature considered various potential constitutional amendments, in addition to the ones which will appear on November’s ballot. Some of the additional amendments considered included removing Article I, Section 4 (“Secession Prohibited”), removing Article I, Section 5 (“Paramount Allegiance to the Federal Government”), removing the provision in Article I, Section 30 (“Militia and the Right to Bear Arms”) which can serve to limit the right of conceal carry (“Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice”), and removing the limitation in Article VI, Section 4 (“Qualification for Voter Registration”) which is can be characterized as a Jim Crow-era law. Instead of putting all of the proposed amendments on the ballot, the legislature polled all their potential suggestions across the state and decided to use only the top six. The highest-polling amendments were: #1: The Right to Hunt, Fish, & Harvest Wildlife, and #2: Voter ID. These amendments, by the way, polled highest across political lines, racial lines, income differential, education, etc. [NC state constitution – https://www.ncleg.net/Legislation/constitution/ncconstitution.html ]
The following is an explanation of each proposed six constitutional amendment (Ballot Initiative), as well as the corresponding NC bill that contains its full language. All bills can be accessed from www.ncleg.net
Amendment 1: [Senate bill 677 – S677]
This amendment enshrines the public’s natural right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife in the state constitution, to be free from any potential attempt to limit or to burden such right. While enshrining this natural right (mentioned in Genesis), it also has the effect of setting up potential challenges to hunting restrictions by saying that any limits on this right can only come from laws intended to promote wildlife conservation and to protect the future of hunting and fishing.
Amendment 2: [House bill 551 – HB551]
The rights of people who are victims of crimes are delineated and enshrined in this amendment, and are:
- Being notified of criminal proceedings against the accused (the perpetrator)
- The right for the victim to speak at all hearings involving plea, sentencing, parole, or the release of the defendant
- The right to “full and timely” restitution (the right to be “made whole” by the defendant/perpetrator; the right to be put back into the position as if the crime had not been committed)
- The right to be “reasonably protected” from the defendant
- A “prompt conclusion” to the case (prompt closure for the victim)
- Victims’ attorneys can petition the court to enforce any of the above provisions
Amendment 3: [House bill 913 – HB913]
This amendment would give more power over appointments to the legislature (the General Assembly), thus taking power away from the Governor who currently has been delegated such authority. The proposed amendment clarifies that the General Assembly has “control over any executive, legislative, or judicial appointment,” although the bill (HB913) doesn’t say exactly how the legislature would exert that control. [The intent is to vest power to make potentially important appointments – ones who exert power and influence over policy and enforcement in the state – with the legislature, which is the body closest to the people. The legislature, or General Assembly, is “the people’s body,” where accountability in government is most achievable. Legislators in both chambers serve two-year terms.]
Amendment 4: [Senate bill 814 – S814]
This amendment changes the rules for who appoints judges when vacancies occur between elections. Appointments to fill judicial vacanices that occur between elections can account for up to 40% of judges who sit on the courts in the state of North Carolina. Currently, the Governor appoints them. Under the proposed amendment, a system would be set up where anybody in the state could submit nominations to a non-partisan “Judicial Merit Commission” which would then evaluate the fitness of those nominations and then send that information to the General Assembly. The legislature would then pick two names to send to the Governor. In cases where the vacancy occurs right before an election, the Chief Justice of the NC Supreme Court would make the selection instead of the Governor. [Judicial appointments are extremely important. We’ve all witnessed over the years how liberals and progressives (ie, the Democratic Party) have sought to get around established law or policy, or to advance their agenda faster than the general public would allow thru the ordinary democratic process, by going to the courts where there are too many liberal and otherwise unprincipled, inexperienced, and untested judges, and judges appointed merely in exchange for political favors and donations, who are happy and without conscience to do so. The intent of this amendment is to vest power to make judicial appointments with the legislature, which is the body closest to the people. The legislature, or General Assembly, is “the people’s body,” where accountability in government is most achievable. Legislators in both chambers serve two-year terms and therefore can quickly be removed for abusing their power or for using the judicial appointments power recklessly.]
Amendment 5: [Senate bill 75 – S75]
This amendment caps the state income tax at 7 percent (7%), which means that the General Assembly would be prevented from instituting an income tax in excess of that. Currently, the NC constitution caps the income tax rate at 10 percent (10%). The initial bill from the Senate would have set the cap at 5.5% which is essentially the current tax rate.
Governor Cooper and left-leaning interest groups are opposed to this amendment because they want the General Assembly to have the flexibility to increase the tax rate should the state need it in an emergency situation. The Republicans, however, have provided for such an emergency, through the state’s “Rainy Day Fund,” which currently contains $2 billion. The legislature further requries each county to have 8% of surplus funds in reserve. Cooper hates the fact that the state has this fund just sitting there. He thinks it should be plundered and used for whatever the state government thinks is more pressing at the time. Cooper believes the proper way to raise emergency funds is by raising the state taxation rate. Republicans, on the other hand, believe that is a bad way to raise such funds. The reason it believes such is that it takes too long to raise the money; sales tax, they believe, is the fastest way.
Amendment 6: [House bill 1092 – HB1092]
This amendment is intended to provide the photo identification requirement for voters that the 2013 NC omnibus Voter ID law required but which was struck down by the 4th Circuit of Appeals in 2016. (It is termed an “omnibus” bill because it made several changes to NC;s election laws, in addition to adding the photo ID requirement). Currently 34 states have some form of a Voter ID law. And all of the southern states have one except North Carolina.
III. CURRENT STATUS OF THE BALLOT INITIATIVES (the lawsuits)
Four of the six ballot initiatives (proposed constitutional amendments) are currently being challenged; opponents want them kept off November’s ballot. The only initiatives not being challenged are the ones protecting the Right to Hunt & Fish and Victims’ Rights (which are the first two listed above).
On August 15, Governor Roy Cooper sued to challenge the initiatives that deal with his appointments power (amendments #3 and #4 above). The language of the amendments above represents the “revised” or re-drafted” language in response to Cooper’s legal challenge.
And the NAACP, along with Clean Air Carolina, sued to challenge those amendments, plus the ones limiting the general assembly on its taxing power and requiring a photo identification to vote. The parties asked for injunctive relief. Governor Cooper challenged the language of the amendments, alleging they are misleading and do not adequately inform voters as to what provisions in the state constitution they seek to amend and what they seek to achieve. Furthermore, he claimed the amendments would “take a wrecking ball to the separation of powers” in Raleigh. The NAACP and Clean Air Carolina challenged the Voter ID amendment on the grounds that it is will disparately impact African-Americans and is therefore an attempt to target them and disenfranchise their voting rights and challenged the Income Tax cap on the grounds that the legislature shouldn’t be precluded from increasing the tax rate (above 7%) if it needs to.
The original language of the amendments, before the revision, and which was the language challenged by Cooper, was as follows:
Amendment 3: Constitutional amendment to establish a bipartisan Board of Ethics and Elections to administer ethics and election laws, to clarify the appointment authority of the Legislative and the Judicial branches, and to prohibit legislators from serving on boards and commissioners exercising executive or judicial authority.
Amendment 4: Constitutional amendment to change the process for filling judicial vacancies that occur between judicial elections from a process in which the Governor has sole appointment power to a process in which the people of the State nominate individuals to fill vacancies by way of a commission comprised of appointees made by the judicial, executive, and legislative branches charged with making recommendations to the legislature as to which nominees are deemed qualified; then the legislature will recommend nominees to the Governor via legislative action not subject to gubernatorial veto; and the Governor will appoint judges from among these nominees.
On August 21, a 3-judge panel agreed with Governor Cooper and granted the injunction. The panel, however, disagreed with the NAACP and Clean Air Carolina on their separate challenges (Voter ID and Income Tax). The panel held that there is no proof to show that Voter ID is discriminatory or that the requirement to present one to vote actually poses a meaningful burden or prevents a person from voting. If a person is truly intent on voting, the requirement of a photo ID poses no reasonable hardship.
[Injunctive Order, issued on August 21 – https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4779492-18-CVS-9805-Order-on-Injunctive-Relief.html ]
The 3-judge panel found fault with the language of the amendments (#3 and #4), claiming that initiative #3 doesn’t adequately explain what the amendment seeks to achieve and initiative #4 is simply misleading. Consequently, the NC Board of Elections is enjoined (prevented) from printing ballots containing initiatives #3 and #4.
Does this court ruling mean that the amendments will not be on November’s ballot?? No. There are two options open to the legislature: (1) They can appeal the ruling; or (2) The General Assembly can convene a special session to re-write the ballot text to overcome the defects as identified by the court. The General Assembly has already has convened a special session. The House met on Friday, August 24, to re-draft the amendments, and the Senate will approve them tomorrow (Monday, August 27).
IV. VOTER FRAUD – Does it Exist? Is there a Potential for Voter Fraud Here in NC?
Regarding Voter Fraud, the Heritage Foundation explains:
“There are three take-away points:
- The right to vote in a free and fair election is the most basic civil right, one on which many other rights of the American people depend.
- Congress and the states should guarantee that every eligible individual is able to vote and that no one’s vote is stolen or diluted.
- Voter fraud is real and hundreds of convictions have been made and documented.”
First of all, let’s review constitutional jurisprudence on regarding state Photo ID voter laws.
In the years after the turn of the century (2000 onward), the states began becoming aware of voting fraud and voting irregularities. One by one they began instituting laws designed to reduce the likelihood of fraud and to ensure integrity in their election process. A federal commission was even empaneled to study voter fraud and it concluded that it exists and recommended that each state enact some sort of law to address voter integrity. In the aftermath of that conclusion, more and more states began enacting laws. These laws essentially fell into four categories: those with a strict photo ID requirement, those with a relaxed photo ID requirement, those requesting an ID (but photo not required), and those with a strict non ID requirement. The strictest voter law and the one potentially posing the greatest burden to a person’s right to vote is a Strict Photo ID law. A challenge to such a Photo ID law was heard by the Supreme Court in 2008, in the case Crawford v. Marion County Board of Elections. [For an overview of the laws in the 50 states: http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-id.aspx ]
In 2005, the Indiana state legislature passed a law requiring all voters who cast a ballot in person to present an acceptable photo ID, issued either by the United States (a federal ID) or by the state of Indiana (such as a driver’s license). Again, Indiana’s Voter ID law was of the strict photo ID type. The Democratic Party of Indiana and interest groups representing African-Americans and elderly citizens filed suit and challenged the law, alleging that it constituted an undue burden on the right to vote.
At trial, the challengers could not produce any witness who could not meet the law’s ID requirement, who could not obtain an acceptable identification. (The Indiana law, as did NC’s Voter ID law, includes a provision that should a person not be able to afford a photo ID or not be able to obtain one, the state would provide one for them, free of charge). The federal district court (federal trial court) upheld the law but on appeal, the appellate court appeared to be divided. The dissenting judge claimed that the law was a “thinly-veiled attempt to dampen turn-out by those likely to vote for Democratic candidates.” The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
Note: It was not alleged that Indiana’s strict photo ID voter law negatively or disparately impacted any other minority group, other than African-Americans. It should also be noted that almost all minority groups vote Democratic. (Why are African-Americans singled out? Could it be that they are incapable of the same responsibilities that other citizens are capable of? Or is it more likely related to the fact that 90% or so of African-Americans identify as Democrats and that African-Americans make up the largest of America’s minority groups?)
The Supreme Court heard the case and handed down its opinion in 2008. There were actually two majority opinions written by the court (something very rare). One was written by the very liberal justice, John Paul Stevens, and the other was written by the very conservative justice, Antonin Scalia. The Court held that Indiana’s strict Photo ID law was closely-related to the state’s legitimate state interest in preventing voter fraud and ensuring integrity in its elections. The Court further held that the photo requirement was merely a slight burden imposed on a person’s right to vote which in no way outweighed that legitimate state interest. The Court characterized the strict photo requirement in Indiana’s law as “Neutral and Non-Discriminatory.”
The Crawford case tells us, and each state legislature, that a strict photo requirement in a voter law: (1) Poses no meaningful burden to the right to vote; and (2) is, on its face, “Neutral and Non-Discriminatory.” It should also instruct every court in the federal judiciary of the same. Supreme Court opinions, once handed down for the first time on a particular issue, become precedent. Precedent refers to a “preceding” opinion which is to be regarded as a guide to be applied in subsequent similar cases.
The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals should have applied the Crawford opinion when it heard the appeal from the NAACP and other interest groups regarding the NC Voter ID law rather than substituting its own judgement for that of the NC General Assembly on a law that was, on its face, neutral and non-discriminatory (and in fact, more relaxed than the Indiana law), and therefore it should have upheld it.
Discussing Voter Fraud and the unfortunately opinion by the 4th Circuit, Jay Delancy of the NC Voter Integrity Project explained that 90% (or more) of African-Americans are registered as Democrats and vote Democratic. And so there will always be a racial impact, or a racial component or racial argument, in anything having to do with politics, political posturing, political decisions, or political policy. There will always be a racial impact when a state legislature does any tweaking to its election laws or when it re-draws its district lines, or gerrymanders. Because of the extraordinarily high political identity of African-Americans with the Democratic Party, one can never truly separate race from politics or from political party.
He continued, explaining that a law designated to prevent voter fraud (which has been consistently and historically perpetrated primarily by the Democratic Party) will of course be seen racial. The re-drawing of district lines designed to benefit the political party in power, which happens to be allowed by law, will necessarily also have a racial component. It is NOT intentional discrimination based on race and there is NO impact based on race. It is what it is simply because of the extraordinarily high racial political identity.
Jay has educated groups, the NC legislature, the NC Board of Elections, other states, the FOX News audience, and even Rachel Maddow over the years on voter fraud, instances of actual voter fraud, the many insidious ways that fraud is committed, the various ways that the potential for fraud exists, and how such potential can be mitigated. For example, in 2012, the NC Voter Integrity Project reported to the State Board of Elections 30,000 deceased voters still on the NC voter registration rolls. Under Democratic control at the time, the Board chose to do nothing and the names were never purged. Also in 2012, the Voter Integrity Project noted that 175,000 “inactive” voters suddenly became active by in-person, on-the-day-of-election voting. Most of those 175,000 “inactive” voters had been highly suspicious to begin with. They had unreliable addresses or had mail returned to the Board of Elections. Yet suddenly, a huge number of such voters showed up to vote.
Looking for instances of fraud, Jay decided to use a novel method which cross-referenced two different lists of individuals. He looked at the information provided by the state Board of Elections of those who voted in the 2012 election and cross-referenced those names with those individuals who had sought to be disqualified to serve jury duty in the state. In North Carolina, persons can legally get out of jury duty, subject to perjury, if they fall into any one of 4 categories: (1) felon; (2) non-citizen; (3) reside outside the district; (4) cannot speak English. Jay looked at the list of individuals who got out of jury duty by asserting they are “non-citizens” and cross-checked to see how many of them voted in the 2012 election. He found thousands of such potentially fraudulent voters. He took the information to the NC Board of Elections (state Board of Elections) and after several years, they finally settled with the matter out of court. Jay said he is pleased with the outcome.
Here are some of the ways that voter fraud is committed:
- Voting early and voting often (or just voting often), in the same jurisdiction
- Duplicate voting – registering in multiple locations and voting in the same election in more than one jurisdiction
- Using the name of a person that has died (but whose name still remains on the state voter registration rolls) to vote
- Voting as an illegal alien (Jay has found many persons who presented, under penalty of perjury, that they couldn’t serve jury duty because they were not a legal citizen yet voted)
- Voting using the name and address of someone who has moved away
- Voting using the name and address of a convicted felon (felons temporarily lose the right to vote but remain registered)
- Voting even though the person is a convicted felon
- Voting using a false identity
- Voting using a false registration: (voting under fraudulent voter registrations that either use a phony name and a real or fake address or claim residence in a particular jurisdiction where the registered voter does not actually live and is not entitled to vote). In Wake and Durham counties, 150 fake voters were created by ACORN. The NC Voter Integrity Project believes there were more, but they stopped looking at some point. They took the information to the state Board of Election by it chose not to investigate or prosecute
- Fraudulent use of absentee ballots (requesting absentee ballots and voting without the knowledge of the actual voter; or obtaining the absentee ballot from a voter and either filling it in directly and forging the voter’s signature or illegally telling the voter who to vote for)
- Voting using a non-existent address (those campaigning for office and who canvass neighborhoods to talk to voters, using information provided by the Board of Elections will find addresses on the list but no physical address existing)
- Using the address of someone the person knows for purposes of voting fraudulently (Ex: sometimes there will be 8, 10, 12, 15, 20 persons voting using the very same address, even when the address is in an area zoned only for single-family)
- Buying votes (paying voters to cast either an in-person or absentee ballot for a particular candidate)
- Voting in multiple counties for the same election
- Voters creating fake addresses
- Unions providing funds to have its members establish “temporary” residences in targeted states prior to elections (while not actually moving or living there) and then voting in those states
- Persons misappropriating other person’s addresses (a friend of mine, just for the heck of it, looked up her address with the Board of Elections and found that several persons were registered to vote from her address, in addition to her and her husband, the only legal residents)
- Political “community-organizers” going into high schools to register students, including those who are illegal, by giving out false information (such as “you can vote even if you aren’t a citizen”)
- Groups intent on perpetrating fraud on the election process have gone through cemeteries, taking down names and other information from gravestones of those who recently passed away (each state has a law that instructs the Board of Elections of how often it must purge the names from its voter rolls of those who have passed. See the Appendix at the end of the article)
- Voters intent on committing voter fraud have purposely voted in more than one state for the same election (for example, Jay has found several who have voted not only in North Carolina, but also in Tennessee and Florida in the same election)
- Volunteers with a political party (usually Democratic) going to nursing homes, retirement communities, and other elder care facilities to register or re-register members, and then filling out their mail-in ballots or busing them to the polling location and voting for them (under the guise of being a caregiver); many elderly persons in such homes, communities and facilities lack the mental capacity to know how they are voting or lack the ability to prevent the volunteer from coercing their vote
- Handing out fake ID’s to homeless persons, addicts, or other persons who cannot provide proof of residence (usually providing a free lunch or $5.00) and then taking them to the polls
- Illegal “assistance” at the polls (forcing or intimidating voters—particularly the elderly, disabled, illiterate, and those for whom English is a second language—to vote for particular candidates while supposedly providing them with “assistance”)
- Altering the vote count (changing the actual vote count either in a precinct or at the central location where votes are counted)
- Ballot petition fraud (forging the signatures of registered voters on the ballot petitions that must be filed with election officials in some states for a candidate or issue to be listed on the official ballot)
Jay Delancy is the foremost expert in North Carolina on voter fraud and speaks about it frequently. He is a watchdog who works tirelessly to identify instances of voter fraud, to identify schemes, to support efforts by our state legislature to protect against voter fraud, to suggest ways to minimize potential voter fraud, and to educate about voter fraud. He provides updates on his Facebook page, including this one video he made: https://www.facebook.com/11818728/videos/10105605658577189/?id=11818728
With all the opportunities and potential for voter fraud, the state values the procedures and provisions put into our election laws to address the problem, including the provisions for cleaning out voter registration lists and the provision for “Confirmation Mailings” (to confirm that a listed voter still resides at the address registered). These provisions are common-sense and valuable.
However, liberal judges don’t necessarily think so. There have been several instances where courts have instructed Boards of Election to reinstate voters who have been removed from the voter registration rolls for good and documented cause and recently, a judge struck down a provision allowing voters who have been determined to no longer reside at a certain address to be removed from the voter rolls.
On August 8, a federal judge invalidated part of North Carolina’s election law – the provision that allows one voter to challenge another’s residency. This provision was used successfully by watchdog and election integrity groups to scrub thousands of names off the voter registration rolls in NC ahead of the 2016 election. (Not one error was made and no one was disenfranchised of his or her right or ability to vote). The goal of this provision, of course, was to prevent someone seeking to fraudulently cast a vote or to cast an additional vote by using the name and address of someone no longer living or no longer residing at the address.
Volunteers with the NC Voter Integrity Project had used this provision to purge 3500 – 4000 voters from the voter registration rolls in Cumberland, Moore, and Beaufort counties. The NAACP challenged the removal of those names, and challenged the provision itself, alleging that the purge of voters disproportionately targets African-American voters. (Again, everything negatively impacts only African-Americans). The NAACP, however, did not make clear how it believes the provision so disproportionately targets them.
Jay Delancy, the director of the NC Voter Integrity Project, said the effort in those counties had one purpose and one purpose only and that was reduce the potential for voter fraud.
In striking down the provision, the judge (Judge Biggs) said that the provision is pre-empted by the 1993 federal “Motor Voter” law, an initiative by the Clinton administration aimed at expanding voter opportunities by registering teens when they go for their drivers permit and license. The “Motor Voter” law (officially name: “The National Voter Registration Act”) mandates certain procedures to reduce the risk that a voter’s registration might be erroneously cancelled. The judge said that allowing one voter to challenge another’s residency contravenes these procedures and frustrates an important goal of the law.
It should be noted that the residency challenges under the challenged provision are not frivolous challenges, but are in line with established election law. Each residency challenge in Cumberland, Moore, and Beaufort counties followed after a postcard was mailed to a particular voter and it was returned as “Undeliverable.” [This scheme was devised by a member of my Tea Party group]. County Elections Boards are allowed to accept returned mail as evidence that the particular voter doesn’t currently live at the address. But that isn’t the end of the inquiry or determination. Before the name is removed from the voter registration rolls, a hearing is called where the challenged voter can present evidence to show that he or she still lives there. If the voter doesn’t appear for the hearing or cannot or does not refute the evidence, then he or she is removed from the voter roll. In other words, North Carolina election laws ensure that their provisions meet due process requirements.
Regardless of the fact that due process requirements are met, Judge Biggs nevertheless struck down the common-sense provision and ordered the Boards of Elections in Cumberland, Moore, and Beaufort counties to reinstate all of the 3500-4000 cancelled voter registrations.
Jay is asking the state legislature to revise state election law to add provisions to once again empower citizens who wish to help minimize the opportunity and potential for voter fraud by helping to identify and challenge illegal and fraudulent voters.
Jay Delancy addresses voter fraud on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/11818728/videos/10105605658577189/?id=11818728
Voter Identification Requirements – Voter ID Laws – http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-id.aspx
Governor Cooper’s Injunctive Order, issued on August 21 – https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4779492-18-CVS-9805-Order-on-Injunctive-Relief.html
NC state constitution – https://www.ncleg.net/Legislation/constitution/ncconstitution.html
Heritage Foundation Explains Voter Fraud – https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/heritage-explains/voter-fraud
Maintenance of State Voter Registration Lists: A Review of Relevant Policies and Procedures – https://nass.org/sites/default/files/reports/nass-report-voter-reg-maintenance-final-dec17.pdf
MAINTENANCE OF STATE VOTER REGISTRATION LISTS: A REVIEW OF RELEVANT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
Referenced at: https://nass.org/sites/default/files/reports/nass-report-voter-reg-maintenance-final-dec17.pdf
Verification of Voter Registration Information —
The voter registration system attempts to match driver’s license numbers with the motor vehicle database. If the last four digits of the voter’s social security number (SSN4) are provided, the number is checked against the Social Security Administration (SSA) database through the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA). If no match is found, the voter will be notified. If the information remains unverified, the applicant must show identification before voting.
Address Confirmation Procedures —
County boards of elections attempt to verify the address of initial voter registration applicants by sending a notice to the applicant by non-forwardable mail, at the address provided on the application form. The county will register the applicant if the Postal Service does not return the notice as undeliverable to the county board. If the first notice is returned as undeliverable, then the county board will send a second notice by non-forwardable mail to the same address to which the first notice was sent. If the second notice is not returned as undeliverable, then the county board will register the applicant. (See NCGS § 163-82.7)
Each county board of elections conducts a program to remove from the registration list voters who have moved out of the county, and update registration records of persons who have moved within the county. (163-82.14)
After every congressional election, each board of elections sends a confirmation mailing to every voter if the board has not confirmed the voter’s address by another means. (163-82.14)
If a voter fails to respond to a confirmation mailing, and does not vote in an election from the date of the notice through the next two general federal elections, the voter will be removed from the voter registration list. (16382.14)
Removal of Names –
A voter will be removed from the registration list if the voter:
- is convicted of a felony;
- confirms in writing a change of address outside of the county;
- fails to respond to a confirmation notice and does not vote or update the voter’s registration through two general elections. (163-82.14)
Obtaining the Names of Voters who are Deceased or Convicted of a Crime –
Each month the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services provides the State Board of Elections with the names of deceased persons who were residents of the state, and the Board distributes the appropriate information to each county board of elections. (163-82.14)
Each month the State Board of Elections provides the county board of elections with the names of persons from that county who have been convicted of a felony. (163-82.14)
Upon receipt of a notice of felony conviction from the US Attorney, the Executive Director of the State Board of Elections will notify the appropriate county.