DeKalb board hears citizen challenge to registrations using PO/UPS addresses; dismisses six withdrawn challenges but takes no final action on bulk list

The DeKalb County Board of Registration and Elections on Thursday heard testimony about a citizen's challenge to scores of voter registrations that a challenger says list U.S. Postal Service boxes, UPS stores or other commercial mail centers as residential addresses. The board voted to dismiss six elector challenges that the challenger had formally withdrawn, but took no final action on the remaining group of challenged registrations after the hearing ended without a majority decision.

The challenge was filed by Bill Henderson, who told the board he had identified 128 registrations (after earlier withdrawals) that he said used post office or commercial mail addresses as the registrants' listed residences. “These all have residential addresses that are addresses of either US post offices, UPS stores, or other mail center businesses and strip malls,” Henderson said in his testimony (transcript excerpt). He urged the board to approve challenges in bulk so the elections office could give electors the opportunity to correct registrations.

The board dismissed six challenges that had been formally withdrawn by Henderson: Tess Duncan, Brian Pritchett, Edwin Randall, Terrell Williams, Omega Burnett and Devonna Shepherd. Later the director reported three more electors had updated their registrations that same day: Cherilyn Wheeler, Cameron Maddox and Gloria Penn. The board’s action on the remaining challenges was inconclusive: motions to defer the item and to sustain the broader set of challenges did not obtain the votes needed to conclude the matter during the meeting.

Why it matters: Board action on these challenges would remove names from the county’s voter rolls unless those electors cure their registrations or appeal to superior court. Public commenters and some board members stressed the risks of removing potentially eligible voters without clear, verifiable proof that they are ineligible.

Public commenters urged caution. Marla Tepper, introduced as a Decatur resident and poll worker, told the board: “Those challenges should be dismissed and the board should issue stern warning about issuing challenges that are not supported by the evidence that is required by law.” Cheryl Dudley of unincorporated Stone Mountain said reducing polling options or improperly removing voters “erodes public trust.” Chris Rogers, a college professor, asked the board to “give these people some grace” and consider outreach and assistance to correct mistakes rather than ending registrations.

Director Carly Smith summarized the department’s outreach after challenges were filed. Staff mailed letters to challenged electors on March 14, using certified and regular mail. As of the meeting, Smith said three electors had updated registrations, eight letters were returned undeliverable by regular mail, 11 certified-mail letters were returned, three certified confirmation cards were returned unsigned, and eight confirmation cards were returned with a signature. Smith said the office had received no response from 91 of the challenged electors as of the report.

Henderson told the board he relied on publicly accessible sources (including online maps) to identify commercial mail centers and post offices and asked the county to verify using its own governmental data. He also asked that any board votes denying challenges be accompanied by a written explanation. Legal counsel and board members discussed statutory procedures for 21-2-229 voter challenges and notice requirements; the hearing record includes references to OCGA provisions and the federal NVRA (section cited by speakers during the meeting).

Board members expressed differing views on timing and next steps. Nancy Jester and others pressed for additional time to allow more electors to respond; a motion to delay the decision until the next meeting failed. Anthony Lewis suggested the board consider operational realities and the risk of removing valid electors, while one board member warned the same pattern of challenges has been brought repeatedly in prior meetings.

The board directed staff to continue follow-up communications with challenged electors. The hearing ended without a formal ruling on the bulk of the challenges; the transcript shows the board did not reach the majority necessary to sustain or reject the remaining items during that session.

Ending: The department’s written report, certified mailing logs and any subsequent updates to the voter roll will be part of the public record and necessary for any follow-up board action or judicial appeals by affected electors.