Wilmington City Council literally missed the memo on early voting. But, of course, it’s a little more complicated than that.
Last week, after the swearing in of a newly restructured Board of Elections, members voted unanimously to approve an early voting plan with one location – the Northeast Library. This immediately kicked off public pushback from the local Democratic party, the NAACP, and Democratic City Councilwoman Salette Andrews, who wrote online that “our access to democracy just took a massive hit,” promising a resolution on the issue at the upcoming council meeting.
In 2019 and earlier municipal election years, there was only one early voting site. But for the last two municipal elections, there have been three voting sites for Wilmington — including the Senior Center off South College and a downtown site at CFCC. In 2023, there was also an early voting site at Carolina Beach. The plan approved last week included one site, with some additional hours and weekend days added.
This caught many off guard, leading some to level accusations of voter suppression at both the Board of Elections and the Republican-controlled Board of Commissioners, which funds the elections office. The county and elections office have been at odds over a host of issues over the last couple of years, most recently over this year’s budget: the county has noted that it’s a significant $420,000 increase from the last municipal-election year, while the elections office has argued it’s roughly $260,000 less than they need.
More on the backstory of the Board of Election's decision, from WHQR’s Sunday Edition: What do we care about when we care about elections?
On Monday, the Board of Elections announced it would hold a special meeting to reconsider the plan. And on Tuesday, Wilmington Mayor Bill Saffo officially announced the city’s recommendations for early voting sites at CFCC and the Senior Center.
This announcement is a bit belated, since the Board of Elections asked the city for its early voting preferences nearly two months ago — but never got an answer.
During last week’s meeting, a number of potential factors were considered, including the popularity of early voting, the available budget, and input from municipalities. Elections Director Rae Hunter-Havens told the board that Carolina Beach had budgeted for and requested an early voting site (Carolina Beach officials were ultimately okay with the lack of an early voting site on Pleasure Island, because there’s only one contested race — for mayor — there this year.)
Wilmington also budgeted for two early voting sites — but didn’t request them. Why?
The short answer is, they simply missed an email.
You've got mail?
In February, the Board of Elections sent cost estimates for the 2025 municipal elections to Wilmington and Carolina Beach. Wilmington’s estimate was just under $244,000, including funding for two early voting sites (as with the past two city elections). The same amount was included in the city’s budget for the 2025-2026 fiscal year.
Then, on Tuesday, June 3, Hunter-Havens sent an email to the Wilmington city clerk.
She notified the city that the elections board would meet in July to approve early voting locations and hours, ahead of the August 8 deadline to submit that plan to the state. She asked, “does the City of Wilmington wish to have an early voting site,” noting that additional sites would mean higher costs (which the city had already budgeted for) but would provide greater access.
“Please provide official correspondence from your governing body regarding their preferences for early voting. Otherwise, the county board will decide based on their knowledge and experience. Please be advised that we cannot guarantee selection of any recommended site: however, those sites will be given high priority,” Hunter-Havens wrote.
Perhaps notably, the Board of Elections had not solicited a site request from the municipalities in previous years.
The following week, a little after 5 p.m. on Monday, June 9, the city clerk forwarded the email, marked as ‘protected’ (which prevents the email from showing up on the city’s public email terminal) to council. The clerk also copied the city attorney and Thom Moton (who was serving as interim city manager between the departure of Tony Caudle at the end of May and the arrival of new city manager Becky Hawke later in the month).
“Please see email below and advise,” the clerk wrote.
But council never rendered any advice because, according to at least three members — including Democrats Salette Andrews and David Joyner and Republican Luke Waddell — they never saw the email.
But it was definitely there, as Andrews and Waddell confirmed this week.
“In searching my e-mails yesterday, I found the forwarded e-mail. I have no idea why none of the elected officials seemed to have noticed it on June 9,” Andrews said.
In an email to council, Waddell wrote, “It’s clear to me that we did, in fact, receive a request from the Board of Elections, forwarded to us by [the clerk], regarding additional early voting locations.”
Waddell urged his fellow council members to immediately respond to the Board of Elections rather than wait for the upcoming August 5 meeting, saying he was in favor of supporting additional sites.
“While I understand this topic may appear on an upcoming agenda, I believe the issue is too important to delay — particularly, given our failure to respond to the initial BOE communication,” Waddell wrote.
It’s not clear how or why city council members missed the email. But it does seem no one followed up on the issue after it was forwarded to council.
Hunter-Havens said the elections office got confirmation that the clerk had received the June 3 email but that the Board of Elections “did not send an additional email on this topic.” Andrews said she was not aware of any follow-up from the city clerk or from elections officials.
Over a month passed with no discussion of early voting by city council and no communication with the Board of Elections.
Then, on July 22, during the Board of Elections meeting, Hunter-Havens presented her proposed early voting plan, which included the Northeast Library and a site at Carolina Beach, based on what she perceived as her budget limitations and the fact that Carolina Beach had requested an early voting site and Wilmington had not.
Budget confusion
Hunter-Havens framed much of the early voting conversation in terms of budget restrictions, including the decision to start asking municipalities for their preferences.
“It has not been our practice in the past to email all municipal contacts to request feedback about their early voting preferences. However, we wanted to provide each municipality with the opportunity to formally share their preferences with the board given the current budget reductions,” Hunter-Havens told WHQR
Hunter-Havens also told the board that she needed to find places to reduce spending. That includes municipal elections, even though they are reimbursed by Wilmington and the beach towns.
“Yes, our approved budget included the county’s requirements regarding budget reduction. The county recommended specific reductions in Casual PT Salaries, Overtime, Cell Phone Allowance, Contracted Services, Training and Travel, Employee Reimbursements, and Supplies for a total of $261,490 budget reduction. But the total reduction could be reached by reducing expenses in other line items if needed. Due to the statutory or administrative requirements governing elections administration, I will need to adjust other line items to achieve the requested budget reduction,” Hunter-Havens told WHQR on Tuesday.
Similar suggestions for shrinking the budget were also made to internal departments as part of across-the-board funding reductions.
But it remains unclear why Hunter-Havens would make cuts to municipal elections, since they are essentially revenue-neutral, as Democratic board member Derrick Miller noted during the July 22 meeting. If the BoE spent $50,000 less on early voting, it would receive $50,000 less in reimbursement, landing in the same fiscal position.
By contrast, spending reductions for the primary election in spring 2026, however controversial they might be, would save overall spending from the BoE’s budget.
According to internal emails, the county’s chief financial officer, Eric Credle, also pushed back on Rae’s interpretation of the budget.
“I’ve seen some of the news articles related to the early voting proposal. I know your expense budget for the year is less than your request, but if the reimbursement amount that we receive from the municipalities reflects the total cost of operating a voting site, it is a net wash to the county from a net revenue/expense standpoint and thus neutral from a financial standpoint,” Credle wrote to Hunter-Havens on Tuesday.
Republican County commissioners LeAnn Pierce and Dane Scalise, who largely shaped the recent budget, have both said publicly that they support additional early voting sites if Wilmington requests them (which it now has).
The Board of Elections decision
The decision on an early voting plan was ultimately up to the Board of Elections — which was both newly restructured and newly sworn in.
Under a new 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.
As WHQR has reported previously, 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).
Critics pointed to the new board’s decision as evidence of a Republican desire to limit early voting. That probably contributed to the willingness of the board’s two Democratic members — Miller and James Battle Morgan, Jr. — to agree to a compromise plan. That’s because, under state law, in the absence of a unanimous agreement, the state elections board — now controlled by Republicans — steps in to determine a plan. Miller told WHQR he felt a state plan would likely be the bare legal minimum.
But the county board seemed more open to expanding access beyond the statutory requirements. After all, newly appointed Republican member John Lyon motioned to go with the statutory minimum hours at one site only — but he failed to get a second from the board’s other two Republicans, member Beverly Setz and chair Jamie Getty.
It’s worth noting that while Miller and Morgan had previously served on the board, Lyon, Setz, and Getty had been sworn in roughly 15 minutes before the early voting discussion. So, while Hunter-Havens noted several times that the board had the authority to pick any early voting plan it wanted, irrespective of budget or the wishes of municipalities, the information she presented was likely influential.
That includes a fairly subdued description of early voting’s changing popularity as a ”gradual increase” (the percentage of ballots cast early has doubled between 2019 and 2023, coinciding with the addition of more early voting sites). It also includes her insistence that the elections office needed to cut municipal election spending — though that appears to be disputed by the county.
And, of course, it includes the fact that Wilmington “didn’t request” an early voting site — which was technically true, but based on one email sent to the city that was, apparently, missed by all the city’s elected officials and which no one followed up on.
Whether any of this will be hashed out, either by Wilmington City Council or the Board of Elections, remains to be seen.
But, for voting access advocates, the good news is that with public support from the City of Wilmington and New Hanover County commissioners, there no apparent political resistance to the Board of Elections approving additional sites.
The New Hanover County Board of Elections will be meeting on Wednesday, August 6, 2025, at 5:30 p.m. in the Board Room at the Board of Elections Office, located at 226 Government Center Drive.
