Granville County elections board sets early-voting dates; public urges retention of South Branch and Oxford sites

The Granville County Board of Elections voted to set one-stop early-voting dates and hours for the November general election but stopped short of finalizing local site placements after a sustained public outcry urging the board to keep South Branch Library and Oxford Public Works as early-voting sites.

During a 30-minute public-comment period, residents and community leaders repeatedly warned that moving or reducing early-voting locations would raise the practical cost of voting and risk disenfranchising voters who rely on those sites. "There are roughly 22,000 registered voters in the southern portion of the county and fewer than 4,000 in the north," Liz Purvis, chair of the Granville County Democrats, told the board, arguing the math favors keeping sites where most voters live.

The board accepted the dates and hours presented by Director Tanya Burnett for the one-stop (early voting) period — starting Thursday, Oct. 15, and running through Saturday, Oct. 31, with weekday hours generally 8:00 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. and specified Saturday hours — but the plan will be contingent on approval by the State Board of Elections. Burnett told members that any local plan would need to be submitted as required by state procedures and that pending state legislation could still affect schedules.

Speakers described concrete uses of the South Branch and Oxford sites in recent elections. "During the 2024 general election, more than 8,400 voters cast ballots during the early voting period" at South Branch and the site was among the most used countywide, Fred Johnson said. Randy Blaustein cited the county's civil-rights history and previous litigation (McGee) and urged the board to avoid decisions that would cause "disproportionate harm." Opposing views surfaced: Michael Magnanti, a former chief judge and poll worker, said the proposal "is not about race" and emphasized recognition of previously underserved northern precincts and staffing concerns.

Board members and the county attorney clarified that the special-called meeting convened March 16 was limited in scope to setting dates and times; because the site plan lacked unanimity at a prior meeting, the director said she must present majority and minority plan spreadsheets if different site proposals are sent to the state. Several board members and members of the public requested a future meeting to discuss site placements and potential county funding for a fourth northern site; the board agreed to schedule further discussion and suggested a special-called meeting on July 15 to pursue those options.

A motion to set the October dates and hours as presented by Director Burnett was moved by Douglas Smith and seconded; the motion passed. The record shows the board voted in favor during the meeting, and the plan will be forwarded to the State Board of Elections for approval as required. The board also agreed to hold a separately noticed meeting to continue discussion about sites and possible county-commissioner funding for an additional northern site.

The board closed the meeting after setting the schedule and arranging follow-up steps. Director Burnett said she would finalize the spreadsheets the state requires and follow up with state staff about whether the county may submit a revised plan after further local discussion.