Cumberland County elections board dismisses Godwin protest after clerk admits limited texting

The Cumberland County Board of Elections on Monday dismissed an election protest filed by Dennis C. Smith Sr., concluding there was not substantial evidence that a town clerk’s messages changed voters’ intentions or swayed the outcome of the Godwin town commissioners race.

Chair Linda DeBorde opened the quasi‑judicial hearing by explaining the panel would hear sworn testimony and consider affidavits and documents. The protester, Dennis C. Smith Sr., said he was told on election day that the town clerk had been "physically texting everybody from her job" urging votes for incumbents and provided the board a photograph of a text message he said bears the clerk’s number and a 10:30 a.m. timestamp.

The text presented by the protester, he said, read in part: "if you are voting today, would you please vote for George Cooper, Joseph Smith, Ronald Menil, and Scarlett Hall ... We would like to keep the board with the same commissioners." Smith called several witnesses, who testified that Anne Phillips and a few others received or later showed them the message.

Town clerk Jackie Cooper, sworn, acknowledged sending text messages from her personal phone while at the town hall. "I got up, went into the bathroom, and that's when I made the text," Cooper testified, saying she sent messages to Anne Phillips and to one other recipient and denied sending a message to Joseph Smith. Cooper told the board she was on a brief break when she composed the texts and that they came from her personal device rather than a town‑issued phone.

Board members focused on two central questions: whether the clerk, while on duty, unlawfully attempted to influence voters and whether any voters relied on that influence and changed their votes. The chair cited North Carolina law restricting employee political activity while on duty: "No employee while on duty or in the work or in the workplace may use his or her authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election or nomination for political office." The board also noted the margin at issue: the difference between Mr. Smith and the fourth‑place finisher was five votes, meaning, the chair said, an influence of roughly three voters would be necessary to alter the outcome.

After deliberation, a member moved to find that there was not substantial evidence of an elections law violation, irregularity, or misconduct adequate to support a conclusion that the results were swayed. The motion was seconded and, as the chair said, "let the record indicate that that is a unanimous vote." The board ordered the protest dismissed and adjourned the hearing at 10:53 a.m.

The board's decision rests on the record produced at the hearing: witnesses who said some recipients had the text or saw it afterward, Cooper’s admission that she sent texts to a limited set of people from her personal phone while at work, and the absence of testimony showing voters changed their votes because of the messages. The board did not assess disciplinary sanctions against the clerk during this proceeding; its stated task was to determine whether the election result was called into question. The protester declined to call additional absent witnesses; the board noted that subpoenas were an available avenue to require in‑person testimony if desired.

The hearing record cites the North Carolina statute referenced by the chair and includes testimony and the text evidence submitted by the protester; the board concluded the proof did not meet the threshold to overturn or otherwise alter the certified result.