NC elections board to consider removing Surry County elections officials
The North Carolina State Board of Elections voted unanimously Monday to consider removing a member of the Surry County Board of Elections for failing to certify the 2022 election even after he acknowledged that it had been conducted fairly and securely, and after he expressed a lack of confidence about election security in North Carolina.
The board also voted 3-2 on party lines to consider the removal of a second Surry board member who signed onto a letter by the first board member expressing doubt about the legality of the election, but ultimately certified the election as required by law.
The two Surry board members, Republicans Jerry Forestieri and Tim DeHaan, were the subject of a complaint by longtime election watchdog Bob Hall and a coalition of left-leaning voting-rights groups.
Surry County made news earlier this year after election denier Mike Lindell, the chief executive of My Pillow, was invited to address the county board of commissioners to discuss voting conspiracy theories. Separately, the county’s election director, Michella Huff, reported being threatened in May by a local GOP leader.
In the complaint discussed Monday, Hall noted that Forestieri and DeHaan had expressed in a letter to the board that they “don’t view election law per NCSBE as legitimate or Constitutional,” blaming “perversion” of state election law by federal Judge Loretta Biggs. In the letter, the two men described election practices as “untrustworthy” and called the results of the election into question while in the course of their official duties.
Hall said those statements and actions conflict with their oath of office as election board members to “execute the duties of the office … according to the law.”
Forestieri and DeHaan didn’t attend the state board meeting. Neither immediately responded to a request for comment.
NC Votes 101: Could your vote be hacked in NC?
In a supporting complaint, five voting-rights groups urged the board to remove both members.
“The letter’s inflammatory language is dangerous misinformation that constitutes an attack on North Carolina’s laws, election integrity, and voter confidence,” the complaint said. “A failure of the State Board to remove them from office would set a dangerous precedent that would pave the way for baseless attacks on the credibility of our elections.”
In the case of Forestieri, who had refused to certify the election, the board voted unanimously to hold a hearing on removal. But in DeHaan’s case, the board was split, because he had in fact certified the election after having signed the letter.
Republican state board member Tommy Tucker, a former state senator, pointed out that he himself had refused to certify the 2020 election.
“That's almost the same contention or position I took when I did not certify the 2020 election,” Tucker said. “I don’t see the need to bring him before us to have a hearing and elongate the process for simply making a statement or having an opinion about judicial activism and those things that surround the election that are not constitutional.”
State board chairman Damon Circosta, a Democrat, responded: “The issue remains what type of speech one can engage in as it relates to the duties on this county board of elections? Freedom of speech in this context is not absolute. We do prohibit speech as it pertains to engaging in partisan political activity.”
Republican board member Stacy Eggers said DeHaan shouldn’t be called in for a hearing because he had fulfilled his responsibility despite expressing his opinion.
Eggers said “judicial activism” is a “a hot-button issue in North Carolina and something that is a public discussion.”
“We are setting a dangerous precedent that we're going to be dragging our political opponents before us in order to correct their speech on various issues of public concern,” Eggers said. “That would have a chilling effect on the speech of those who are in the best position to point out that the emperor has no clothes.”
Jeff Carmon, a Democratic board member, disagreed.
“I don't consider anyone that comes before us a political opponent or political teammate when addressing the matters that are before us,” Carmon countered. “You spoke quite eloquently about the chilling effect. We're in the era now that we need to make sure we're taking steps to show the public that we're working as a group, as a team, and that our personal opinions on issues and other branches of government should not come into play.”
Circosta pointed out that the decision before the board at this stage is to decide whether there's sufficient evidence to move to a hearing. “I believe there is on both of these,” Circosta said. “I am not yet convinced that removal would be warranted on either of these. As such, I think we need to have a hearing for both.”
The hearings are likely to be scheduled in early 2023.
