It has been a rough week for the New Hanover County Board of Elections, to say the least.
On Tuesday night, New Hanover County appeared to lag behind nearly every other local elections board in the state — even those in storm-ravaged western N.C. I was live on the air that evening, and for two hours, I fielded increasingly confused and frustrated emails, texts, and phone calls — all while pledging to listeners that results would be posted “soon.” We reached out to Rae Hunter Havens, the county elections director, but didn’t hear back.
When the results were finally posted, they showed extremely tight races all the way down the ballot, with only a few decisive wins (like in State Senate District Seven and the District Attorney’s race). Races for county commissioner and school board seats were close, some within recount range.
Early Wednesday morning, as we began to put together our coverage of election results, we discussed checking in on what had caused the delay. It wasn’t a novel problem and probably had a reasonable explanation; back in February, it took little more than a printer issue to delay primary election results in Pender County for hours. Conspiracy theories flew, and county leaders chaffed, but (relatively) quickly we got the results and a sense of what had happened.
But as we were drafting some questions for Hunter-Havens we started hearing from candidates that there was a bigger issue: hundreds of absentee ballots that hadn’t been included in Election Night totals. Hunter-Havens didn’t respond to calls, but we did get a press release from the county, acting as a spokesperson for the elections office (since she doesn’t have her own communications staff).
We were told Election Night delays had been caused by a long line at the polls, where folks who had shown up before the 7:30 p.m. cutoff had waited two hours before getting to vote. We heard later that it was the UNCW polling location — which makes sense, given college students’ propensity for procrastination (hey, we’ve all been there).
But Hunter-Havens offered no information about why other precincts hadn’t been reported earlier, or why she or the office hadn’t responded to requests for information on Election Night. It was frustrating, and confusing, but also the kind of thing you could probably overlook.
It was harder to overlook the number of uncounted ballots – 1,900 provisional and 1,500 absentee mail-in.
Now, every year we get provisional ballots that have to be vetted and approved or rejected before the canvass, when votes are finalized. We expected some more this year due to the new voter ID law (which allowed people who forgot a photo ID to bring it to the elections office later, even after Election Day, as long as it was before the canvass). In general, provisional ballots tend to shake out equal parts Democratic and Republican. They can swing very tight races, though, which is why we’re always quick to remind people that Election Night results are unofficial.
Unlike provisional ballots, mail-in absentee ballots tend to lean Democratic, by as much as two-to-one over Republicans. Hundreds of these would definitely shift the race — so 1,500 was definitely a game changer. It was quite likely we could see Democratic candidates get a 500-vote bump over their Republican rivals, which could swing the school board and commissioner race.
In 2020 and 2022, we saw candidates’ margins shift by a few hundred votes after provisional and absentee ballots. But a 2023 law ended the three-day post-Election-Day grace period, which meant we were expecting fewer mail-in ballots. We got the opposite. On social media, we saw people react with confusion and, unfortunately, suspicion.
While Hunter-Havens again did not respond to phone calls or emails, her statements through the county said the elections board — which is separate from county government— approved an administrative cutoff for mail-in ballots after Oct. 31. That meant all the ballots received between Halloween and 7:30 p.m. on Election Day were outstanding.
Apparently, Hunter-Havens told county officials that this decision was backed by state guidance. However, county manager Chris Coudriet repeatedly voiced his frustration with this situation in internal emails, suggesting that the elections board had violated the state law requiring all absentee ballots received before the start of Election Day to show up on the initial vote tallies.
Then we heard the elections board had increased its estimate from 1,500 to 1,750 uncounted absentee ballots.
With prodding from the county, we got responses from Hunter-Havens – although they were somewhat evasive, for example refusing to directly confirm the new number. Emails shared by the county provided a clearer picture. As the government headed into a three-day blackout for Veterans’ Day weekend, a final batch of emails confirmed the initial 1,500 had been a “visual estimate” and that the real number was, in fact, higher.
We turned to the state board, asking for clarity and, frankly, what the hell was going on.
Patrick Gannon, the spokesperson for the North Carolina State Board of Elections, had already been dismissive of our concerns — saying that additional ballots were always part of the post-election process leading up to the canvass. He’d likewise told the county, which was at this point demanding a meeting with state officials, that their concerns were “ridiculous.” The county’s request was pushed off until early December, according to emails acquired by WHQR.
Gannon and I have had a few tense moments in the past but he’s done a respectable job handling communications for an agency overseeing the complicated, poorly understood, and often fraught processes of both elections and campaign finance. (Once, after sending several increasingly terse emails to the wrong address, I had to eat crow and apologize; Gannon was magnanimous.)
A former StarNews reporter, Gannon knows that journalists just want to get to the truth. But as the spokesperson for a state agency, his job is at least partly to defend the institution — and his prerogative is to dismiss our urgency as impatience.
His position was that we needed to calm down, and that the results of the canvass would answer any lingering questions. Our position was that we needed answers quickly, or some significant portion of the public would question those results.
Below: An excerpt from Gannon's email.
|