Board attorney says redactions were required as candidate-challenge goes to State Board

BUNCOMBE COUNTY — The Buncombe County Board of Elections spent a large portion of its meeting debating whether county staff or counsel should have redacted unsworn statements from documents submitted in a recent candidate challenge, after an appeal moved the case to the State Board of Elections.

Amy, the board’s attorney, told members the State Board will conduct a “whole record review” and decide whether “there was substantial evidence to support your decision.” She said she redacted portions of documents that contained unsworn personal opinions because those statements were not admissible unless the person testified under oath or submitted a sworn affidavit. “It was my legal opinion,” she said, “the statute requires that this board act in accordance with the rule 8 c, which is the rules of evidence.”

Why it matters: Board members said they were surprised to see blacked‑out lines in documents passed out during the hearing and argued they should have been told in advance so the five-member board could consider the handling together. One board member told counsel the redactions felt like information had been withheld from the panel conducting the hearing.

Counsel said she acted to protect the board’s decision from an evidentiary challenge and later checked her interpretation with counsel to the State Board. She emphasized that the substantive documents remained available to the board and that only editorialized statements were removed. “Everything that was redacted was presented in testimony in the hearing,” said Glenda, the board chair, summarizing counsel’s explanation and the board’s view that the legal steps taken were intended to preserve due process.

Board action and next steps: The appeal was accepted as timely and appropriate by counsel, and the State Board’s review is expected before early voting begins. Counsel said she could not guarantee an outcome but expressed confidence in the county board’s decision and in the legal basis for the redactions. Members asked staff to adopt a clearer notification process so future redactions and the reasons for them are explicitly communicated to every board member prior to hearings.

The board did not take new formal action on the challenge at the meeting; the matter is now pending with the State Board of Elections.