Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Challenges topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board enters 17 ballot challenges after state list flags absentee duplicates, felon‑list matches and possible deceased voters
Summary
Staff presented state‑supplied lists that flagged absentee‑by‑mail duplicates, potential felon‑status issues and deceased‑voter matches. The board disapproved five absentee applications and voted to enter 17 challenges to be adjudicated at canvass.
At the Nov. 12 meeting the Buncombe County Board of Elections considered a set of board challenges supplied in part by the State Board of Elections. Staff explained three categories of concern: absentee‑by‑mail ballots that had also been cast in person due to local scanners or printing or polling‑place reporting issues; names appearing on the state’s felony/restoration list; and names potentially matching deceased‑voter datasets.
For three voters staff said an absentee ballot had been scanned and accepted but polling place records showed those voters later presented at a polling location and cast ballots; guidance from state staff indicates the absentee application should be disapproved and the absentee ballot challenged where it can be retrieved and matched. The board voted 5‑0 to disapprove five absentee‑by‑mail applications identified by staff.
Staff also flagged entries from a state felony/restoration list. In at least one case a voter had presented documentation asserting that their voting rights were restored; the board directed staff to forward the materials to the state and to pursue confirmation. Members noted that restoration determinations often require interagency validation and may be resolved by the state board prior to final canvass.
The board then voted unanimously to enter challenges on 17 ballots presented by staff (including the five absentee applications already disapproved). Board members instructed staff to notify affected voters by phone, email or mail where possible, to prepare challenge packets and to bring the matters for adjudication at the county canvass meeting.
The board’s motions were procedural: entering a challenge does not itself disqualify a ballot without subsequent adjudication at canvass or a final administrative decision. Staff said outreach and state follow‑up were already in progress and that the county would continue researching registration and incident reports for contested provisional ballots before Thursday’s canvass.
