Camden County board upholds most elector challenges, dismisses a handful after public hearing

The Camden County Board of Elections and Registration on Thursday held a public hearing on multiple elector challenges and voted to uphold the majority of the challenges, removing the listed electors from the county voter rolls while dismissing or deferring action on several others.

In proceedings led by the board chair, members moved to strike items 8, 18, 23 and 26 from the active challenge list for separate handling and then voted to uphold challenges for most of the remaining entries. The board later agreed to dismiss the challenge for number 31, identified in the record as Ashley Rochelle, and keep her on the active voter list. A subsequent motion to uphold the challenges for items 29, 30 and 32 and remove those electors from the rolls carried by voice vote.

The hearing included staff clarifications about legal limits on outreach. An election office staff member explained that “we are legally bound to reach out our first contact with the voters [at] the mailing address that they have on file,” and that only after return mail is received can staff explore additional avenues; the staff member also said the board may direct alternative outreach if it chooses. The same staff member noted a recent state legislative carve‑out allowing people without a permanent residence to register by using the elections office in some circumstances.

Board members repeatedly separated procedural steps: they voted first on setting aside a small set of cases for further review, then on dismissals that left electors on the active list, and finally on upholding or removing others. For the items where the challenge was upheld, the board’s action was to remove those names from the voter rolls as presented.

The board did not read a roll‑call vote for each motion; most outcomes were recorded by voice vote with the chair saying the motion carried or passed. Where the transcript records an explicit second or a named mover and seconder (for example, a later point notes Ray Holland made a motion seconded by Vernon Higgins), the meeting followed standard motion procedure and the chair declared the outcome after members answered “Aye.”

The board directed staff to continue investigating the two items left open (numbers 18 and 23) and to return with further information; those electors remain under challenge pending staff follow‑up. The meeting record does not specify statutory citations for each specific challenge or the exact remediation steps staff will take next.

The hearing concluded with the board thanking elections staff for their work and describing the process as “very expedient and, I think it was very fair and equitable,” according to an election office staff member. The board then reconvened the regular meeting and moved on to other agenda items.