§ 163-85. Challenge procedure other than on day of primary or election.

Case Name: Knight v. Higgs

Citation: 659 S.E.2d 742

Year: 2008

Case PDF: Knight v Higgs

Case Summary: In the legislative challenge of a voter's registration, the voter moved that the chair be recused as she had publicly announced the voter did not live in the county where he was registered. On appeal, the court determined that the failure of the board to consider the voter's motion created an issue to the propriety of the board's outcome. Ultimately, the board violated the voters due process rights and the voter was thus entitled to a new hearing.

Case Name: Lloyd v. Babb

Citation: 251 S.E.2d 843

Year: 1979

Case PDF: LloydvBabb

Case Summary: The classification between potential voters as residents entitled to vote and nonresidents not entitled to vote shall be upheld if such classifications are reasonable and not subject to a compelling state interest. However, state laws which have the effect of denying certain classes the right to vote must be supported of a compelling justification. Moreover, it would not be a denial of equal protection to make certain inquiries of students who sought to register to vote as to their respective residency which were not made of other would-be registrants. Although there is no denial of equal protection under the use of the presumption that a student who leaves his parents’ home to go to college is not domiciled in the place where the college is located for voting purposes. Students seeking registration in the local of which they went to college may be asked specific questions about their financial affairs, such as whether they had an automobile, and where their banking and business connections lay as these would not implicate voting classifications on the basis of wealth or property ownership. It was not an unjustifiable intrusion into the private affairs of students when compelling them to answer certain questions concerning their residency. Furthermore, a student who merely intends to remain at his place of schooling only until graduation is not demonstrative to their domicile for voting purposes; so long as the student intends to make his home in the community where he is physically present and has no intent to return to his former home upon graduation, he may claim the college community as his domicile for voting purposes. Additionally, registrars may use questionnaires to obtain necessary facts to determine whether a student is entitled to vote in a particular locality is permissible. In determining whether such person is a bona fide resident for voting purposes, the State has demonstrative authority and may issue domicile (or "residence") test which exclude only those necessary to preserve the basic conception of a political community. However, a voter residing in a town only three months before an election, whose name was registered by one of the candidates, is not a qualified elector. The qualifications of "domicile" for voting purposes are legal capacity, physical presence, the intent to acquire domicile which requires both an intent to abandon one's prior domicile and an intent to remain at the new domicile, and the acquisition of a new domicile which may be shown both by declarations of the registrant and by objective facts which may be obtained via inquiries directed to the registrant by the registrar. If evidence adduced at trial showed members and officials of the county board had failed to require students seeking registration to prove their domicile, a court could enjoin the board from further registering students without doing so.  The courts possesses the power to order count boards to use a specific set of questions in relation to student voter registration as it relates to their domicile. However, judicial purging of voter registrants was not an available remedy in a mandamus proceeding as it would be duplicative of the statutory process for challenging voters (challenging persons were not entitled to a judicial remedy identical to the administrative remedy). But an action of the State Board of Elections in determining voter registration does not arise from a "contested case" and therefore provides no basis for judicial review.

Case Name: State ex rel. Freeman v. Ponder

Citation: 67 S.E.2d 292

Year: 1951

Case PDF: State ex rel. Freeman v. Ponder

Case Summary: In an election for the office of county sheriff, the sheriff was elected but the incumbent refused to accede the office to the sheriff. Here, the citizens brought an action to determine the conflicting claims to the county sheriff election. The returns made by registrars and abstracts of votes for county officers, which was prepared by the county board, was in compliance with the statute and properly admitted as substantive evidence. The court here dismissed the incumbent's challenge for an increased number of peremptory challenges. Holding the general rule existed in statute which specified that the parties could challenge peremptorily six jurors without showing any cause, and such limitation shall be enforced no matter how numerous such parties could be.

Case Name: State ex rel. Ledwell v. Proctor

Citation: 19 S.E.2d 234

Year: 1942

Case PDF: State ex rel. Ledwell v. Proctor

Case Summary: The candidate challenging the election claimed some of the votes in favor of the alderman were illegal and thus should not have been counted. The candidate also alleged that the alderman unlawfully took the oath and was acting in the official capacity of alderman from such wrongful oath, thus should be removed therefrom and the candidate declared to be the duly qualified elected alderman. The candidate requested the court to declare the duly elected alderman. Upon appeal, the court held that the candidate was required to first exhaust the local election machinery before moving the court for relief. In conclusion, the candidate failed to state a cause of action because: (1) he did not allege that the returns of the precinct have been canvassed; (2) the result of the election had been judicially determined; (3) that a certificate has been issued or that the board acted arbitrarily nor in bad faith. The court refuses to be substituted for the board of elections for the purpose of canvassing elections returns from precinct officials and declaring the results thereof as the candidates need first to exhaust local election machinery.

Case Name: Hurrow v. Miller

Citation: 262 S.E.2d

Year: 1980

Case PDF: HurrowvMiller

Case Summary: The voter brought an action, contending that the challenge to his vote was made with malice and without probable cause and that the challengers knew, or should have known, that such challenge would have caused the voter trouble and expense. The court held that the voter's malicious due process claim was properly dismissed because actions based on administrative proceedings were limited to instances where there was a type of confinement or interference with the right to earn a livelihood. Here, the case failed to fall within these limitations and the challengers could not be penalized for attempting to preserve equitable and adequate voting lists. Therefore the challengers' counter for abuse of process was properly dismissed as they failed to allege the process was abused or misused.

Case Name: Fransworth v. Jones

Citation: 114 N.C.App. 182

Year: 1994

Case PDF: FransworthvJones

Case Summary: The term "residence" as used in state election laws, is synonymous with legal domicile. Although the city council candidate acquired new residence in ward and expressed his intention to remain there permanently, he maintained his previous residence and spent approximately 50% of his time there. Therefore the candidate did not change his address to that of his new residence for any election purposes and failed to meet his burden of evidence to the county board of elections.