Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Election Administration topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Dare County elections staff outline local effects of North Carolina Supreme Court order in Jefferson Griffin protest

2993287 · April 15, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Dare County Board of Elections staff summarized a March–April court dispute over challenged voters in the Jefferson Griffin contest and described which local ballots could be affected and what steps the county is taking to notify voters.

Kelly, director of elections for Dare County, told the Board of Elections on April 15 that a North Carolina Supreme Court order in the election protest brought by Supreme Court candidate Jefferson Griffin has changed how challenged voters’ ballots will be treated in that contest.

Kelly said the county is following directions from the State Board of Elections and will not take unilateral action on list maintenance until instructed. She summarized the court’s rulings: some challenged voters who had been identified as having incomplete registrations will no longer have their votes removed in the Griffin contest; certain military and overseas absentee voters will now be required to submit a copy of photo identification or complete a photo-ID exemption affidavit to keep their votes counted in the contest; and some voters who never resided in the United States but claim a North Carolina connection through parents would have their votes removed from the Supreme Court contest.

The order extends the window for affected military and overseas voters to provide photo ID to up to 30 days after notification by county boards, Kelly said. She also said the State Board of Elections staff are continuing to review the decisions and will provide county boards and affected voters with instructions when appropriate.

On local counts, Kelly said the county’s list initially contained both a larger set and a smaller subset of challenged names: "for us, that was just under 200. I think we had a 69 on the list," she said. She added that many people on Dare County’s list have contacted the elections office to update registrations; county staff are mailing forms and accepting in-person updates.

Kelly said one voter in Dare County was on the list affected by the residency issue described in the court order. She emphasized that the protest relates only to the Supreme Court contest and does not affect selections in other contests on the ballot.

The director said the county has posted a link on the Dare County elections website to the State Board press release and to the Court of Appeals decision from April 4 for background; she urged voters with questions to consult the county site for updates.

The Board did not take any formal action during the meeting on the protest; members asked clarifying questions and staff said they would follow forthcoming state guidance.