Buncombe elections board reviews seven photo‑ID exception forms, votes to notify voters for hearings and accepts several cures

The Buncombe County Board of Elections spent most of its Nov. 12 meeting reviewing seven photo‑ID exception (reasonable‑impediment) forms submitted by voters who cast provisional ballots.

Staff told the board they had forwarded a template notice and a state board memorandum advising that, absent evidence the form is false, photo‑ID exception forms generally should be approved. Board members discussed the controlling legal standard from the state memo and administrative code: the county board’s role is to determine the truth or falsity of the specific impediment a voter wrote on the form, not to judge whether that reason is subjectively reasonable.

Member Aceto moved that the board “propose to reject” the exception form submitted in Ronnie Carol Burris’ envelope, saying the reason on the form — an expired ID “years ago” — “bears no relationship to [the voter’s] ability to present the photo ID in person” and therefore should be identified as potentially false in the notice. Legal staff advised that the board must give a voter specific notice of the reasons the board considers the affidavit potentially false and must offer the voter the chance to respond in writing or in person at a hearing. The board voted to carry the motion to propose rejection and to send notice rather than make a final finding of falsity.

Board members discussed several similar cases. In one, staff reported after-the-fact that a voter had said they lacked transportation; members noted that evidence collected by staff after the voter signed the form is not part of the sworn statement unless the voter signs an amended form or appears at the hearing. Another form listed “forgot ID” as the impediment; the state memo gives that example as a responsive statement that can mean the voter could not present ID at the polling place, but the board again opted to propose rejection (send notice) in order to create a clear record and allow the voter to respond.

The board accepted some forms as valid. It voted to accept the exception form for Kelsey Suzanne Carter (reason: lost/stolen/misplaced ID) and to accept the form for Jason Sterling Inman (reason listed as ID taken by police), each motion carrying unanimously. For at least one envelope the board found the exception form and the provisional application were unsigned and the voter did not appear in registration records; the board proposed to disallow that form for lack of signature and directed staff to research the voter’s registration and to continue outreach.

Throughout the discussion members repeatedly referenced a state “numbered memo (20 23‑03) paragraph 16” and N.C.A.C. rules describing notice requirements and the limited inquiry—truth or falsity—county boards may make. Staff confirmed the county can tell voters they may cure certain deficiencies by coming to the office (for example, obtaining a free photo ID) before the 5 p.m. deadline the day before canvass.

The board scheduled follow‑up work for Thursday, Nov. 14. Notices will be sent to voters the board has proposed to reject so those voters may submit documentation or appear at hearing; staff will continue phone and mail outreach where possible.

The board’s immediate actions were procedural: it did not record any final, unanimous findings of falsity (those can only be made after notice and an opportunity to be heard). The most recent procedural step is that the board authorized notices identifying the specific reasons each challenged affidavit is being considered potentially false.