Rockingham County elections board dismisses residency protest against Paul Dishman

The Rockingham County Board of Elections on Dec. 1 dismissed an election protest filed by Randy Hunt that alleged city councilman‑elect Paul Dishman did not reside at 515 Church Street in Eden.

In a short hearing that included witness testimony, documentary exhibits and affidavits, the board concluded the protester had not presented substantial evidence that Dishman abandoned 515 Church Street and established a new domicile elsewhere. "All of this evidence shows that 515 Church Street ... is his domicile and remains his domicile today," attorney Michael Jones said for the respondent during closing arguments.

Why it matters: the board's decision preserves Dishman's status as the winning candidate for Ward 4 in Eden's municipal election, and it clarifies that the protester — who carries the burden of proof in such proceedings — failed to meet the legal standard required to overturn an election result.

What the board heard: Randy Hunt, the protester, opened by asserting Dishman "not living at 515 Church Street in Eden" and offered water and garbage consumption records, photographs, property‑record screenshots and other attachments in support of his claim. Hunt cited usage differences and said Dishman had established residence at 184 Landfill Road. Board counsel noted the statutory standard and the necessity that a protest contain substantial evidence.

The respondent’s case: Michael Jones, counsel for Dishman, presented the candidate and a package of documentary proof and live testimony. Paul Dishman identified himself and testified that he was born and raised at 515 Church Street, owns the property, and "intends for 515 Church Street to remain [his] home indefinitely." Exhibits admitted by the board included a commercial driver’s license, insurance and bank statements, campaign bank documents, utility bills and notarized affidavits from neighbors attesting to Dishman’s residency.

Evidentiary disputes: parties disagreed over the admissibility of social media screenshots and certain GIS screenshots; the board permitted the state board protest form and multiple documentary exhibits but sustained authenticity/hearsay objections to some attachments and held GIS screenshots open for later consideration. Board counsel explained that, under North Carolina practice for county boards of elections, affidavits may be considered in these proceedings.

Legal standard and decision: Board counsel told members the protester must prove irregularity by "substantial evidence" and that "residency is synonymous with domicile" under state election law (referencing North Carolina General Statute 163‑57.3). After deliberation, a board member moved to dismiss the protest for lack of substantial evidence, the motion was seconded, and the board voted to grant it. The chair announced, "The motion to dismiss the protest is granted."

Next steps: The board entered findings of fact into the record to support the dismissal. The meeting adjourned following the vote.

Reported speakers and direct quotes are drawn from the hearing record. The board did not announce a further review or rehearing during the session.