Profile image
By Citizen WElls (Reporter)
Contributor profile | More stories
Story Views

Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:

NC State Board of Elections emergency meeting Sunday, November 27, 2016, Attorney Thomas H. Stark appeal, DeLuca v. Strach et al, Statement regarding ethics and conflicts of interest, Stark requests state board control all protests and eligibility of all voters in Durham County

Sunday, November 27, 2016 6:46
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

NC State Board of Elections emergency meeting Sunday, November 27, 2016, Attorney Thomas H. Stark appeal, DeLuca v. Strach et al, Statement regarding ethics and conflicts of interest, Stark requests state board control all protests and eligibility of all voters in Durham County

“Durham historically hasn’t figured out how to carry out an election properly.”…Superior Court Judge Donald Stephens

“Durham County is widely considered to be the most liberal county in NC.”…Citizen Wells

“We control life, Winston, at all its levels. You are imagining that there is something called human nature which will be outraged by what we do and will turn against us. But we create human nature. Men are infinitely malleable.”…George Orwell, “1984″

From the NC State Board of Elections.


The State Board of Elections will hold a public meeting by teleconference on Sunday, November 27, 2016 at 12:30 p.m. Interested members of the public may listen to proceedings by dialing (213) 929-4212 (code: 696-443-050).


Call to order Statement regarding ethics and conflicts of interest G.S. § 138A-15(e)

Consideration of request regarding certain protests of election appealed from Durham County. G.S. § 163-182.12

Closed session to receive briefing from counsel regarding the handling of DeLuca v. Strach et al. and representation therein G.S. § 143-318.11(a)(3) Action to approve the hiring of litigation counsel Adjourn

From the  Thomas H. Stark appeal.

“6. State the legal and factual basis for your appeal. NCGS Chapter 163, Articles 14A (Voting) and 15 (Counting Ballots, etc.) Failure of Tabulators to correctly count ballots for five early voting sites and one Election Day precinct. Manufacturer claims that the error was caused by a software limitation of its operating system (the system could not tabulate the number of votes it
was called to report in the early voting sights), and the fact that Durham County utilized the tabulators in a way that took them beyond the specified limits (by using the one tabulator in each early voting sight, the failure should have been anticipated). The evidence demonstrates that all of the data discussed in the hearing is from the same PCM CIA card utilized in the tabulators, therefore, an independent verification of the reported results has not been performed. At this point it cannot be determined whether the number of ballots in the sealed
boxes from the several tabulators equal the reported results or not. That determination cannot be made until the ballots are counted.”

“7. Is there any material submitted with this appeal that was not presented to and considered by the county board? Is so, please identify and state why it was not presented to the county board. Why do you think the State Board of Elections should consider it? There are a number of anomalies in Durham that appear to have impacted the outcome of this election. There are a series of protests and/or appeals pending before the State Board or the Durham County Board of Elections. It was established in one precinct that a provisional ballot was run through the tabulator in error, allegedly due to deficient availability of adequately trained staff. The provisional ballot was voted in a precinct other than the ones at issue in this protest. The State Board of Elections should direct Durham County to hand count all ballots voted in this election, carefully examining the ballots for provisional markings, as part of considering this appeal that also tests the viability and reliability of the County’s tabulating equipment. The State Board of Elections should assist Durham in determining how many ineligible voters cast ballots in this election. In addition to the provisional ballot illegally voted, it appears that several persons who were ineligible to vote due to their status in the criminal justice system actually cast votes in Durham. Durham has refused to allow the public to review any documents submitted with absentee ballots, despite repeated requests. (See separate appeal submitted this date.) Finally, Durham has a number of Same Day Registrations that the appellant does not believe to be verified, or verified with the level of scrutiny that is warranted. Also enclosed are three pages of data that has been collected from voter registration records and which demonstrate the substantial increase in the number of voters removed from voting rolls in the three months following a general election when contrasted with off year elections, or local election years. Also included are figures for numbers of voters removed from the rolls following the 2012 election in some other nearby urban counties. The number of removed voters are more than the amount necessary to decide the races referred to above, namely Governor and Auditor. The existence of the number of anomalies together with the number of ballots involved, over 94,000, or even a small fraction of them, can change the outcome of the election if not properly tabulated.”

“9. What relief do you seek? Why? The Appellant requests the consideration of all appeals coming to the Board from Durham County, that the State Board exercise control of all protests pending in Durham County, that the State Board carefully consider the eligibility of the voters in Durham County, and remove the votes of persons ineligible to vote from the voting results, whether ineligible as a felon, deceased, voted in another jurisdiction, not domiciled in Durham County, in the precinct indicated, not a Citizen, or for some other reason, that the State Board order Durham County to hand count the ballots to insure no provisional ballots were voted without being properly approved by the Durham County Elections Board, and, further, that the totals are accurately reported. (The Appellant is well aware that the issues which present in Durham County may well apply in other counties as well, and require additional scrutiny by the State Board.)”

More here:


We encourage you to Share our Reports, Analyses, Breaking News and Videos. Simply Click your Favorite Social Media Button and Share.

Report abuse


Your Comments
Question   Razz  Sad   Evil  Exclaim  Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  LOL   Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Arrow  Neutral  Cry   Mr. Green

Top Stories
Recent Stories



Top Global

Top Alternative



Email this story
Email this story

If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.