- Election administration problems in Anson and New Hanover counties could cost two county election officials their jobs
- Those problems demonstrate the need for election performance audits
- While the state auditor already has the authority to conduct performance audits, the rules and procedures for those audits should be established by law
Recent reports of election administration problems in North Carolina over the past several elections are a wake-up call. We should join the growing number of states that conduct election performance audits to identify and correct problems in how elections are conducted, help election officials do their jobs more effectively, and give voters greater confidence that election results reflect the will of the people.
Election administration failures
The Anson County Board of Elections has requested that the North Carolina State Board of Elections (SBE) remove county elections director Sherry Melton, alleging mismanagement and dishonesty, failure to comply with lawful directives, interference with the duties of the county board of elections, and unprofessional conduct.
The board’s request to fire Melton includes several serious allegations:
- Not properly sealing ballot bags, boxes, and machinery.
- Interfering with the lawful duties of an election board by unilaterally canceling a board meeting without authorization.
- Denying an accessible voting machine to a blind voter, Donna Burr. The SBE notes that federal law and state regulations require that every early voting site and precinct polling place must have at least one voting machine that allows those with disabilities, including the blind, to vote “privately and independently.”
- Improperly altering precinct election official assignments after they had been set by the county board.
Anson County had also earned some infamy in 2020, when John Montgomery, whose wife was running for the Anson County Register of Deeds, approached voters in the parking lot of an early voting site and then “helped” them as they marked their ballots. Election officials asked Montgomery to stop the activity, which is illegal under North Carolina law, but did not take any action.
New Hanover County had a debacle with absentee ballots in 2024:
The New Hanover County Board of Elections “openly violated North Carolina law” during the 2024 election by not counting on election day all the absentee ballots they received before election day. In response to that and other problems at the board, the county hired a law firm to review what went wrong.
The firm produced its report in March [2025]. While the report indicated that election results were not altered, they found several problems with how the board conducted the election and made recommendations to correct those problems. One of those recommendations was to “conduct comprehensive audits.”
New Hanover County Elections Director Rae Hunter-Havens resigned seven months after the report, citing health reasons.
North Carolina needs election performance audits
The SBE says that post-election audits “can detect problems such as equipment tampering, ballot stuffing, and voting machine or counting errors.”
It is important to note, however, that the SBE’s audits are largely limited to what the bipartisan National Conference of State Legislatures calls a “tabulation audit.” That audit is largely confined to confirming that the numbers add up properly. For example, they check that the number of voters equals the number of ballots and that the sum of ballots cast from each “reporting group” (absentee-by-mail, early voting sites, and election day precinct sites) matches the total ballots cast.
Ensuring that the numbers match is of limited value if the procedures that generated them are flawed, however. Audits should also measure the extent to which election laws and procedures were followed to ensure that the ballots counted are what the Georgetown Law Technology Review calls a “trustworthy record of voter intent.”
That is where performance (or procedural) audits come in.
While performance election audits vary by state, they could include procedures and practices of election officials to prepare for the elections, including:
- Voter registration
- Candidate filing and withdrawal
- The preparation, printing, distribution, handling, examining, counting, and all other handling of ballots
- The determination of election results
- The entire election process, including the primary election, any second primary, and the general election
The audit would cover all those involved in the election process, including officials with the SBE and county boards of elections.
Several states already conduct performance audits. A 2025 Locke research brief found several elements of Utah’s biennial procedural audit that North Carolina should emulate. Those include coverage of procedures over a two-year period (not just individual elections), being conducted by an outside entity, and responses from the state’s chief elections officer to the audit’s findings.
There ought to be an election performance audit law
Seeing the detailed recommendations for improvement that performance audits in Texas and Utah produce, it is hard not to want the same for North Carolina.
We do not have to wait. Under state law, all state and local governments and agencies are “subject to audit and investigation under the policy guidance of the Auditor” to provide the General Assembly, the executive branch, and the public with “an independent evaluation of public program performance.” The state auditor also has the authority to demand access to data and records and “may examine and copy all books, records, reports, vouchers, correspondence, files, personnel files, investments, and any other documentation of any State agency.”
In short, the auditor can already conduct election performance audits.
So, why do we need a law to give the state auditor the authority to do what he already has the authority to do?
Three reasons come to mind. First, a law would require regular election performance audits, no matter who the state auditor is. Such regular audits can help build a culture of continuous improvement for the SBE and county election boards.
Second, having the audit in statute would clearly delineate what the audit entails and the access those conducting the audit would have. For example, the model legislation below specifies that personnel conducting the audit would have full access to closely observe and examine all records, data, facilities, storage areas, and equipment. Election officials or staff would be present when those personnel are examining election returns and equipment to preserve the chain of custody, however. Voters’ right to a secret ballot would also be maintained.
Finally, there is already a precedent for state law requiring an annual performance audit of the Department of Transportation.
An election performance audit law would help foster continuous improvement in North Carolina’s election administration and detect and correct problems before they fester to the point where election officials must be fired.
