A hearing was held today in the basement of the Henry A. Dennis Building on Garnett Street regarding the petition of George Hoyle to be placed on the November ballot in the race for Sheriff of Vance County.
Besides officials, involved parties, citizens, witnesses, and press, political notables Henderson City Council member Mary Emma Evans and Vance County Commissioner Terry Garrison were present at the meeting.
A recording of the meeting may be heard here. (The file is very large and may cause considerable delays for slower connections.)
At the beginning of the hearing, James Kearney, Chair of the Vance County Board of Elections, laid out the ground rules for the challenge. He told the packed hearing room that testimony would be heard under oath and that the burden of proof was on the challenger.
The challenger was to present first and the respondent would present afterward.
Peter White was present as the challenger, accompanied by Anthony Butler. White was represented by attorney Christopher Brook. George Hoyle was present as the respondent, represented by attorney Jim Wrenn.
Kearney defined the scope of the hearing to “the relevant points that surround the petition that is in question”.
The chair said that the board would not give its conclusions today, but present a written decision in four to five business days. He also said that the board would present appeal options at that time as well.
Brook opened for his client by arguing that North Carolina General Statute (NCGS) 163-122(b), the basis for White’s challenge, requires that the petition identify the name of the party, the county, and the office sought, and is the reason for the language at the top of the petition.
Brook argued that in this case, on page 73 of the petition, neither the blank for county nor office is filled out.
“There’s simply no way around that,” Brook said.
If you remove these signatures, Brook said, the four percent requirement of signatures of registered voters required to place an unaffiliated candidate on the ballot is not met.
Brook also said that there are signatures that are questionable. He qualified his statement by saying that there are signatures signed by husbands and wives and the signatures appear to be exactly the same.
He went on to argue that the law calls for individual, discrete signatures not signed by other people. The attorney argued that if those signatures are eliminated, the number of valid signatures on the petition is reduced to 940, not enough to allow Hoyle to be placed on the ballot.
Brook argued that there are two bases for eliminating Hoyle from the petition. He said that these are procedural, technical violations, and that there is no evidence of gross misconduct.
White’s attorney told the board that it must apply the rules indiscriminately rather than judge the intent of Hoyle.
Wrenn, Hoyle’s attorney, responded in his opening statement by arguing that the complaint itself does not meet the standard set by NCGS 163-182.9 which requires that the complaint be filed by a registered voter and include a name and address and telephone number.
The complaint was filed by the Committee to Elect Peter White. It was signed by Anthony Butler, but does not contain an address or a telephone number.
Wrenn also said that the complaint should state what the protester is protesting. He indicated that the complaint does not mention a problem with the signatures on the petition.
Hoyle’s attorney went on to argue that there is no substantial evidence of misconduct, and that White must provide substantial evidence.
Witnesses were then called by the challenger.
First to take the stand was Anthony Butler. Butler testified that he is a resident of Henderson, Vance County, is registered to vote, a member of White’s committee, and White’s part-time political strategist.
Butler said that he was trying to help White win.
The recent candidate for the North Carolina legislature said that he had acted on White’s behalf by delivering the letter of complaint to the Board of Elections and that he had signed the letter.
A copy of the letter was produced and admitted into evidence.
The witness testified that the basis of the complaint against the petition was that one of the petitions was not properly headed as called for in NCGS 163-122.
In cross-examination by Wrenn, Butler acknowledged that the letter came from the Committee to Elect Peter White, and that neither his name, other than his signature, address, telephone number, nor statement that he is a Vance County voter appeared on the letter. He also acknoweldged that the letter mentioned a protest of page 73 of the petition.
At that time, Wrenn asked that the proceeding be dismissed on the ground that it was improperly filed. Kearney denied the motion.
Brook produced a list of 51 signatures for which his party requested review. Wrenn objected, since the issue of signatures was not in the original complaint.
Kearney reserved the objection until relevance was determined. No ruling was issued during the hearing.
Wrenn then Alexinie Hoyle to the stand. Hoyle testified that she had carried page 73 of the petition around and told each signatory that it was for placing George Hoyle on the ballot for Sheriff of Vance County.
Wrenn then proceeded to call a string of witnesses from page 73 of the petition, each of whom testified that they had signed page 73 and understood that they were signing it in support of placing George Hoyle on the ballot for Sheriff of Vance County.
Wrenn stopped calling witnesses when the complaintants agreed to admit that each witness would be asked the same question and give the same response. In all, there would have been fourteen witnesses in addition to Alexine Hoyle from page 73 of the petition.
There are a total of twenty signatures on the document.
Hoyle was then called to the stand by Wrenn. He testified that page 73 was attached to his petition and certified by the Vance County Board of Elections.
White did not testify during the proceeding.
In closing, Brook argued that the petition does not fulfill NCGS 163-122. He said that White was not alleging fraud, but that it was up to Hoyle to get four percent of the signatures, not a voter responsibility.
He said that if page 73 is thrown out, Hoyle is under the threshhold.
Brook said that the statute does not give “wiggle room” to the board.
Wrenn argued in closing that the challenge does not meet the requirements of law. He reiterated that the complaint lacks the name, address, telephone number, or statement that the person is a registered Vance County voter. He once again asked the board to dismiss on that basis.
He further asked that the board not consider the evidence on the 51 names that the complaintant had raised, since it was not part of the original complaint.
Wrenn stated that the law does not say that failure to comply with the form [the top of petition page blanks] is fatal.
Kearney said that the board would consider the evidence and give its decision in writing.