WHQR's Sunday Edition is a free weekly newsletter delivered every Sunday morning. You can sign up for Sunday Edition here.
On Wednesday evening, I saw a Facebook post from Deborah Dicks Maxwell, head of the North Carolina NAACP, showing that the New Hanover County Board of Elections had announced its early voting plan.
“This is the Early Voting schedule for New Hanover County which is ONLY at the Northeast Library,” she wrote.
For the last two municipal elections – in 2021 and 2023 – there have been three sites for Wilmington, including a downtown site at CFCC and one at the Senior Center (and in 2023 Carolina Beach also had its own early voting site). So this year’s plan caught some off guard, with many claiming it was unduly restrictive or even “voter suppression in action.”
Some noted that the Northeast Library is generally acknowledged to be a Republican stronghold (on Election Days, there’s almost always a strong GOP volunteer presence at the site). Others noted its distance from downtown Wilmington, although it is on the WAVE 206 route from Padgett Station downtown to Mayfaire (which does run weekends). At least one commentor noted the socio-economic dynamics, writing “surely we can find a whiter location than that,” with another adding, “or richer. Don’t forget RICHER.”
Others were quick to point the finger at Republican New Hanover County commissioners, whose budget cuts – drafted and approved along party lines in a whirlwind 24-hour period last month – included about $260,000 less funding for the Board of Elections than director Rae Hunter-Havens had requested. Democratic Commissioner Stephanie Walker referenced the “terrible budget,” which she’d voted against, and Wilmington City Councilwoman Salette Andrews, also a Democrat, shared a Port City Daily article on the early voting plan on Facebook, writing, “our access to democracy just took a massive hit.”
So, what happened? Was this a result of New Hanover County’s budget cuts? And is this voter suppression?
Spoiler alert: It’s complicated. But, it’s also not a done deal. Best I can tell, if the City of Wilmington wants to pay for additional early voting sites, they’ve still got time to make a case for them.
The 2025 early voting plan
Earlier this week, the New Hanover County Board of Elections swore in new members as part of a reorganization under a new state law. The board still includes two Democrats and two Republicans, but with a chair appointed by the state auditor — Republican David Boliek — instead of the governor.
The law was decried by Democrats as another power grab aimed at further weakening North Carolina’s governor’s office, already one of the weakest in the state. It essentially guaranteed a Republican majority on every county elections board (although, to be fair, Democratic Governor Roy Cooper had appointed Democrats as county board chairs under the previous law, ensuring Democratic majorities on county boards).
One of the first orders of business for the new board was approving an early voting plan, which under state law must be submitted to the state by August 8 (in past years it was due a little later in August). Under the law, county boards must come to a unanimous agreement or else the state board will approve its own plan for the county — a situation that has played out at least twice in recent years in New Hanover County.
The initial plan, put forward by Elections Director Rae Hunter-Havens, included some additional hours on top of the state minimum requirements, as well as an early voting site at Carolina Beach.
Republican member John Lyon, who was just appointed under the new law, motioned to go with the statutory minimum hours at one site only, but didn’t receive a second. Democratic Board member Derrick Miller — who had formerly served as chair under Cooper — voiced concerns about the lack of a downtown location, in particular for people relying on public transportation. But Miller’s suggestion also failed to gain majority traction.
(A side note: the Northeast Library is serving as an ‘in lieu’ site for the new Board of Elections offices located adjacent to the government center off Racine Drive. Hunter-Havens told the board on Tuesday that the new election office is “relatively small” and would make simultaneously handling voting and administrative duties “challenging.” She said the in lieu site must be within four miles or 10 minutes of the official office. That would preclude the downtown CFCC location, which is about 6 miles away, or — being very optimistic about traffic — about a 15-minute drive.
I don’t think those upset about the Northeast Library would feel better if the sole early voting site were the elections office instead. But I do think it’s worth noting that, apparently, the county’s new $5.6 million facility is too small for what you would assume is one of its major functions. Neither Hunter-Havens or the county responded to my question about this. So, maybe there’s a good reason, maybe not. Put a pin in that for another time.)
In any case, ultimately the board unanimously approved a plan keeping the additional weekend hours but scrapping the second location on Pleasure Island.
That’s what happened — but there is, of course, more to it than that.
Early voting in New Hanover County
One-stop absentee voting for people with disabilities or who would be out of the state was first allowed in 1977, and early voting for all eligible residents has been around for almost 25 years, with one-stop voting authorized in 2007. So, as an option for the average voter, early voting has had a relatively brief history and, for much of that time, New Hanover County has only had one early voting site.
In 2011, newly hired Elections Director Marvin MacFadyen pushed for more sites, as Hunter-Havens told the board on Tuesday.
“I think when a new director came into the County back in 2011 actually, when I was first hired to be a system specialist, he thought he might be able to increase municipal turnout by having three sites, it really didn't have the outcome that he was hoping for,” she said.
MacFadyen was later fired amid accusations of mismanagement and harassment, and trouble with the law. His replacement, Derek Bowens, was well respected by both parties on the board, but didn’t apparently push for more early voting sites. From 2015 through 2019, there was only one site, although with some additional hours.
Then, during the August 2021 Board of Elections meeting, the Democratic majority proposed adding a second site — located in downtown Wilmington on CFCC’s campus. The board’s two Republican candidates had their own proposition and wouldn’t agree, and so two plans were submitted to the state. Ultimately, three spots were approved (by the state, it seems): the Northeast Library, CFCC, and the Senior Center (near the intersection of Shipyard and South College).
In 2023, the same plan was approved, with the addition of the early voting site in Carolina Beach.
This year, obviously, things were different. Many, including Hunter-Havens, have pointed to the county budget. But there seem to be other factors, too.
Peeling the budget onion
Hunter-Havens framed her initial proposal to the board members in the context of this year’s contentious county budget.
This is, I would argue, part of ongoing tensions between the elections office and County Manager Chris Coudriet, who have clashed repeatedly over everything from the use of the Northeast Library to the 2024 election to the BoE’s use of county email to solicit support for the elections budget. After the absentee ballot snafu last year, Coudriet authorized a $30,000 investigation (or ‘review,’ or ‘audit,’ depending on who you ask) by the Parker Poe law firm, looking into the elections office’s operations. The county and elections offices disputed each other’s interpretation of the resulting report — and it’s clear they’re not on the same page about this year’s budget, either.
The county has argued that the elections office is getting almost 20% more than last year, while Hunter-Havens has argued that because last fiscal year had one election — the 2024 general — and this upcoming year has two elections — the 2025 municipal and 2026 primary — there are increased operating costs. The county says the BoE is perfectly well funded in this year’s budget; Hunter-Havens described it to me, and her board, as a $260,000 cut.
“I did try to be very strategic with presenting possible options for the board. Unlike many other departments in the county, the approved FY 26 budget did require us to reduce our operating expenses by $261,490 and so I had to go back through my requested budget to see where can I find those saving,” Hunter-Havens told the board Tuesday.
Trimming back early voting, which is staffed with “casual part-time” staffing, was one place where Hunter-Havens said they had the flexibility to make reductions. She said only Carolina Beach had asked for an early voting site.
So, on paper, Hunter-Havens' initial proposal made sense: it saved money on the CFCC and Senior Center sites, and offered Carolina Beach the site it had requested.
But this is where things get a little weedy, so stay with me.
While the Board of Elections fronts the cost for municipal elections, by law those municipalities have to reimburse the elections office. That means, as Miller pointed out, they are functionally “revenue neutral.”
However, as part of the county’s budget instructions to the elections office, the upfront “expenditures” of local elections are considered separately from the reimbursement “revenue.”
Hunter-Havens explained it this way, “So the generation of that revenue, when I've asked the county finance department and those representatives, is the way it has been explained to me, is that managing the requested reduction of our operational expenses is a separate component than the revenue that's generated as well. I certainly understand what Mr. Miller is stating — our our ask is still that I reduce my budget by $261,000 regardless of the revenue that's been generated. That's my understanding of the ask.”
In other words, even though the Board of Elections gets back the money it spends on elections in Wilmington, Carolina Beach, and the other beach towns, the county still considers the upfront costs to be part of the budget. It still counts towards the total amount of money the Board of Elections has to spend for the year — even though it will be reimbursed.
Here’s an oversimplified version, as I understand it: Imagine you had a budget of $100 for the week under this arrangement. Early in the week, say on Monday, you spent $20 buying lunch for a friend who forgot their wallet. Towards the end of the week, you’ve spent the other $80, and you’re out of money. Then, on Saturday, the friend repays you. Now, even though you have $20 in your hand, from a budgetary point of view, you’re still out of money, since you’ve technically spent $100. Repayments go in a different column, apparently.
There may be some sound budgetary logic to this — I’m a journalist, Jim, not an accountant! — but it does seem very wonky. And, to be clear, it’s not just a quirk of bookkeeping. The fact that the reimbursements don’t factor into the financial equation means Hunter-Havens was essentially treating the municipal elections as a county-level expense, subject to the constraints of the county budget.
Further down the rabbit hole
Ok, hopefully you’re still with me — because there are a few more layers to this.
There was also the argument over the necessity of early voting. Responding to questions from the board about the trends for early voting, Hunter-Havens noted that it was not the “most prevalent” voting method.
“You do see a gradual increase as the popularity of early voting has grown. But it is not the most dominant,” she said.
Looking back at WHQR’s reporting and state voting records, here’s how those numbers have actually increased, with the number of early voters and percentage out of the total ballots cast in municipal races around New Hanover County:
- 2017 – 2,769 out of 13,990 (20%)
- 2019 – 4,191 out of 18,292 (23%)
- 2021 – 9,659 out of 23,671 (41%)
- 2023 — 8,080 out of 21,121 (38%)
Notably, 2021 featured a high-profile mayoral race between incumbent Bill Saffo and former mayor and state senator Harper Peterson, which could have increased turnout. Also notable: 2017 and 2019 had one early voting site, while 2021 had three and 2023 had four, including three in Wilmington and one in Carolina Beach.
All told, I would say that calling Election Day voting “the most common option,” as Hunter-Havens put it, is technically true, but obscures the significant number of people who vote early.
I’m not saying Hunter-Havens deliberately downplayed the popularity of early voting. And perhaps she was trying to avoid advocating for a politically unpopular option, or maybe just responding with the data she had on the fly. But the truth is that the percentage of ballots cast during early voting roughly doubled between 2017 and 2023, coinciding with the increase in early voting sites. Is doubling “gradual”? I suppose we could argue semantics, but I definitely would have been more specific about the rate of increase.
Then there was the role of the municipalities themselves.
It’s not clear to what extent the Board of Elections and Wilmington and the beach towns were in discussion, or if Hunter-Havens and elections staff solicited requests or if was up to the municipalities to ask for early voting sites. It’s clear there were discussions, though, because I’ve confirmed both Carolina Beach and Wilmington received budget estimates for the 2025 election.
In the case of Carolina Beach, whose collective enthusiasm for local democracy always warms the cockles of my heart, early voting ended up being largely a non-issue. According to emails I’ve reviewed, the town was indeed initially interested in early voting, and there was a consensus they were willing to pay around $7,000 for early voting (with a total cost, including Election Day, of around $21,000). This was based on an estimate the Board of Elections sent the town in mid-February.
But after the filing period, which ended July 18, there ended up being only one contested race — for mayor — and, given that, town council was ultimately fine with not having their own early voting site and didn’t push back on the Board of Elections decision.
The City of Wilmington didn’t request early voting sites, according to Hunter-Havens.
I spoke to two city council members, Andrews and fellow Democrat David Joyner, who said this never came across their desks. Andrews said she would be putting a resolution on the agenda for council’s August 5 meeting in support of a downtown site. That’s cutting it close, but the Board of Elections could hold a special or emergency meeting in the next several days to consider, and potentially approve, an amendment to the early voting plan.
It does seem odd that council members weren’t looped in, though, especially given that Carolina Beach town council was aware of the process. Maybe it fell between the cracks between outgoing city manager Tony Caudle, who retired on May 30, and new manager Becky Hawke, who started at the end of June.
Also odd: the city essentially dodged my questions about this.
When I initially asked if the city had discussed potential early voting sites, a spokesperson directed me to Hunter-Havens. She, in turn, directed me to a video of Tuesday’s meeting — which didn’t provide any specifics about why Wilmington didn’t request early voting sites. So I went back to the city and asked if there were specific reasons for not requesting — budgetary cutbacks, low turnout, or something like that — and this time I was directed to the city clerk. I’m not sure what special knowledge the clerk would have that the city’s top spokesperson wouldn’t have.
(Note: That was Friday evening and, given that the clerk’s office routinely takes several weeks to produce public documents, it seemed unlikely I’d get an answer before the early voting plan deadline, let alone writing this newsletter.)
Right now, I don’t know if this was a budgetary issue for the city. I do know the city budgeted $138,839 and $178,949 for the 2021 and 2023 municipal elections, with two extra early voting sites, and $243,817 for this year, based on an estimate provided by elections officials. There could be budget details I’m not familiar with, but there’s certainly more money allocated this year than in the last two municipal elections.
(There’s a strange issue with this year’s budget, which reportedly tapped unused municipal election funding to support the city’s equestrian police unit, although there was maybe $10,000 or so unspent from 2023, and nothing appropriated in 2024. I’m not sure what’s going on there, but I’m looking into it.)
But, all of this said, the law doesn’t require the Board of Elections to base its early voting plan on requests from municipalities. It does seem that, in the past, the elections office has at least once picked up the cost of early voting because it hadn’t provided an estimate ahead of time — that was in Carolina Beach in 2023. I’m not sure if it’s happened other times.
The point is, as Hunter-Havens said at least twice during Tuesday’s meeting, regardless of her budget considerations, “the board has the authority to adopt an early voting plan that you feel is appropriate.”
So, while the county’s budget restrictions, the popularity of early voting, and the will of the municipalities were all raised and discussed, it seems the Board of Elections could have approved more early voting sites or hours, if the political will had been there.
But, as evidenced by the outcome, the political will wasn’t there. In the end, newly appointed Republican Board Chair Jamie Getty offered to stick with one site, adding expanded hours, including weekend voting. Miller told me he essentially saw the writing on the wall, and offered to support Getty’s plan because he felt it was the best alternative; if the board was logjammed 3-2 on party lines and the issue went to the state, Miller felt the current Republican-controlled state Board of Elections would simply default to the statutory minimum.
So, again, that’s what happened — this time with some context and backstory. But the question, as it’s been put to me rather forcefully in a number of emails, texts, and other messages, remains: is this a perfunctory financial decision, racially or politically motivated voter suppression, or something in between?
Every vote counts. Right?
There are certainly many people in our community whose concerns are not assuaged by pointing to the years when New Hanover County operated one voting site for municipal early voting, the accessibility of the Northeast Library by bus line, or the additional hours and weekend voting added to the statutory minimum by the Board of Elections.
I asked LeRon Montgomery, president of the New Hanover County NAACP, for his thoughts, and he sent me this statement:
This decision is a disservice to our community and a significant hindrance to voters, particularly those who rely on public transportation, work long hours, or face mobility challenges. I cannot understand the rationale behind this location choice, and I fear it represents yet another form of voter suppression—intentional or not.
Our community deserves equitable access to the democratic process, and the Board of Elections has fallen short in its responsibility with this decision. I urge them to reconsider and take immediate action to ensure accessible and fair voting for all members of our community.
It is worth noting that Montgomery’s plea isn’t just symbolic. As Hunter-Havens confirmed to me, the Board of Elections could reconsider and amend their current early voting plan, as long as they called a meeting and unanimously approved it before the August 8 deadline.
As for the charge of voter suppression, well, “intentional or not” leaves a lot of wiggle room — enough to sail Roy Carroll’s Skyfall superyacht through.
Did the Board of Elections, or at least its more conservative members, conspire to deliberately make it harder for economically disadvantaged voters, specifically lower-income Black residents, to cast a ballot? Was that the prescriptive intent of the Board of Commissioners’ Republican majority when they pushed through the recent budget?
I know there are people who think so. But, as a journalist, I don’t have the receipts to back up that claim.
What I can say is that the comments I’ve seen online — including sarcastic takes like, “gee, how did we do it back in the day?” — and other appeals to the days before one-stop voting seem oblivious to why we’ve expanded voting in the first place. There’s a long, nasty history of voter suppression in this country, and in the South, it’s still painfully within the bounds of living memory. But there are other economic factors, too, like the erosion of the middle class, rents that are wildly outpacing wages, and a full-blown child care crisis where even more affluent families find themselves on waiting lists. Election Day is not a holiday, and these factors surely make it harder for some folks to vote.
(And, yes, I know some of these comments came from people who have faced, and surmounted, these kinds of struggles and thus wonder why others can't do the same. I understand those sentiments. But everyone's struggle is different, and not everyone has the same resilience, support, or luck.)
As a reporter and editor, I tend to apply Hanlon’s Razor whenever I can: I don’t attribute to malice what could more sensibly be attributed to ignorance or incompetence. When I see those comments, I don’t immediately accuse the person of being a White supremacist. But I wonder if, in their personal lives, they’ve had to work double shifts, at gigs where getting a day off isn’t just a colossal pain in the ass but also means losing $100 that was already earmarked for food, gas, and bills. I wonder if they’re considering that, if you’re taking care of a couple of kids, a bus ride across town and back might be less of a fun little civic outing and more of a struggle.
And, on the flip-side, I get that, if you feel like the deck is already stacked against you, and that the system has no interest in you or your vote, that the temptation to say, “fuck it,” and opt out of the democratic process is only going to be intensified. I know, because I’ve had that conversation with people, many times, and heard those exact two words.
That hurts my heart because, as I’ve written many times, I think taking part in your local democratic elections is one of the most meaningful civic things you can do. There is good reason to be disaffected by national politics, which can feel like a fait accompli produced by gerrymandering, shady campaign funding, and the two-party control over candidates and messaging. But local races, where sometimes a carload of people could make the difference between two candidates, that is someplace you can feel like you’re really making a difference — because you are.
I say all that because, over the last four years, we’ve heard plenty about election integrity. A lot of that has been conspiratorial nonsense — both delusional and intentionally malicious — but some of it, I will grant, has been earnest.
I’ve watched hours of Board of Elections meetings, where members worked tediously through individual ballots, scrutinizing signatures, trying to rectify names and addresses, or debating whether the shipping label of a FedEx or UPS package counts as the ‘mail by’ date for absentee ballots. Hours and hours spent on a few votes.
I remember an incident a few years ago where someone was accidentally kept out of a voting location at UNCW (the building itself was open, but one the doors automatically locked). I got multiple calls, texts, and emails about this — one voter who was inadvertently kept from the ballot box. And I took it seriously, as I take every one of the questionable ballots seriously.
I have deep concerns about what Trump’s endlessly repeated election lies are doing to our nation, and our community. I’m saddened that the Board of Elections and their staff, who spend countless hours working through the mind-bogglingly complex process of managing judges, volunteers, ballots, equipment, and more, have been pilloried as agents of some nonsensical deep state cabal. (And, yes, I’ve heard the same kind of thing lately from some on the left, grasping for an explanation for Kamala Harris’ loss beyond an indictment of the Democratic party’s failure of vision and the allure of Trump’s populism.)
None of that means I don’t think voter security and integrity are important. But here’s where I probably part company with some who spend a lot of time talking about “election integrity.”
Let’s say that the current early voting plan doesn’t disenfranchise voters. Ok. What does it do to enfranchise voters? Maybe it doesn’t make it too difficult to vote — what does it do to make it easier?
Do I wish more people participated in the municipal elections? Of course. A 21% turnout rate is just embarrassing, honestly. Could local media do more to inform voters of the stakes and consequences of elections? Absolutely. Would many people spend a little bit more of their taxpayer money to improve and increase access? Probably (especially if it were cents on the dollar compared to other line items that never get much scrutiny).
I’m not saying we have to go as far as the elections in India, where laws prohibit making any eligible voter travel more than 1.24 miles to cast a ballot — meaning that election officials have to scour over a billion square miles for voters, bringing the ballot box to them.
But how much would it cost to add an extra week of early voting to downtown Wilmington? Based on the Carolina Beach estimate, about $7,000. But even if it were three times that, it would still be less than the county spent hiring Parker Poe to investigate the Board of Elections.
This is just my opinion, so please take it as such: At a time when governments are tightening their belts and looking for fat to trim, I get that every dollar matters. But if you were going to pick a core services, something you needed rather than just wanted, I would think free and fair elections would be near the top of the list.
More to the point, if it's the City of Wilmington's money paying for the election, then it seems the elected officials should have some say in the matter.
Based on the emails I've reviewed, Carolina Beach would have had an opportunity to push back or appeal if they'd still wanted an early voting site after the Board of Elections made its decision. It seems like Wilmington’s city council will at least put such an appeal to a vote at their next meeting. And, hopefully, we might get some clarity about how they were left out of the loop in the first place.
