The interview with Bartlett was conducted at 10:30 a.m. on Wednesday, April 6, 2016.
https://youtu.be/WnxYL2h-c00
Kate Pantano: Basically we wanted to start by understanding how you got into your position with the Board of Elections, and we were wondering what drew you to work in elections in the first place?
Section 2: 0:10 – 1:21 (1:11)
Gary Bartlett: First of all I had a background in the political side, it started as a junior at Chapel Hill. I was invited to a young Democrats’ meeting, and I went there, and I was wondering how liberal they were, and come to find out they were normal people, and that was a relief. And I was asked by a candidate that was running for governor, so I helped him, and then when I got home I was asked by different people running for local office to help them, and I was really not into the Democratic Party structure at that time. And then through my involvement I served one term as county Party chairman and worked for a management development company at the time, and a longtime friend asked did I manage his campaign for congress.
Section 3: 1:21 – 1:22 (0:01)
David Rieder: When was this?
Section 4: 1:22 – 3:14 (1:52)
GB: This was in 1986. Martin Lancaster ran, and my employer at the time said we would give you a leave of absence and you can manage the campaign. I did, and Martin won. And then I went back, and then during the transition of redistricting in 1990 I was asked to do that again, but this time I was asked to go for a year to work on the staff.
It ended up being 2.7 years. During that time Alex Brock who is the current Executive Director was retiring and I was looking forward to going back to North Carolina and a good friend of mine, Phil Baddoor, who got elected to the legislature and became Majority Leader, called and said you should apply for this. So I did and I did not know how seriously I would be considered….so I got lucky and I got offered the job and the state Board of Elections voted me in so that is my start and for 20 years I had a fantastic job, I learned a lot, I was able to do a lot of good things and I can also tell you as much as I loved it I haven’t missed it.
Section 5: 3:14 – 3:24 (0:10)
KP: When you first joined the board in 1993, what were your goals for voting reforms in North Carolina?
Section 6: 3:24 – 6:13 (2:49)
GB: First of all what we needed then was some changes in infrastructure. At that moment the board was kind of medieval set up where you had your but there was no connectivity to the state, and what we tried to do was open up the process and the channels of communication. We not only did that but came up with the third or fourth certification program where there was a rigorous schedule for not only election directors and staff but also board members, and that was a very big thing in getting everyone on the same page.
From there we went to a uniformity program where we came up with… Every process that we deal with in elections, have uniform policies and procedures and then the law to back it up, and we had elections library on our website that I don’t think is there today. But what we tried to do is educate and communicate, and what we did from there was we were told by the state board members that we help any legislature no matter what and any time they requested something we give good service and provide any information. So what we did was we provided a lot of things for different people that few people knew about but it was fun working with the legislature.
Let me give you an example of how one of these things that became part of the lawsuit evolved. I had a meeting with Johnny McClain who was chief deputy director with Representative Debra Ross. She wanted to do Election Day registration and voting. We had a meeting, and we thought there was not enough time for infrastructure, and there needed to be another way of doing things so she challenged us to come up with a way so we came up with a second chance of voting registration during the early voting period. And it worked quite well and that’s one of the things really proud of.
Section 7: 6:13 – 6:19 (0:06)
KP: What role did race play in voting in North Carolina 20 years ago?
Section 8: 6:19 – 6:27 (0:08)
KP: And has it changed in the past 20 years?
Section 9: 6:27 – 6:53 (0:26)
GB: I would say some form or fashion the issues regarding race are the same but they’ve oscillated into the other but underlying there are still the same issues. There has not been a lot of bridging or going to another level it seems to be pretty similar.
Section 10: 6:53 – 6:57 (0:04)
KP: Do you feel like it differs in North Carolina as opposed to other states?
Section 11: 6:57 – 7:19 (0:22)
GB: No I think that… Let me rephrase it, and this is just an opinion but I think it depends on where you live and how the people view race in that area but if you look at things outside of elections like clashes with police you’ll see this everywhere.
Section 12: 7:19 – 7:32 (0:13)
DR: But what exactly happens. How does race affect voting and what needs to be in place to make it a non-issue?
Section 13: 7:32 – 9:34 (2:02)
GB: Well I think that… Let me try to give you an analysis that will hopefully bring some insight. The majority of the people that are not decision makers do not seem to have a problem with race. Where race comes into play is when someone has to win an election, and there is only a strategy to make that an issue and there are several ways it comes into play.
An example: one of the things H.B. 589 did was say that if you live in a precinct you must vote in that precinct unless it’s early voting site before the election. That is current law. There are problems with transportation for some of the more poor people, and usually poor is related to an Afro-American, Hispanic, or other race.
And now if you vote a vote outside the precinct it does not count at all whereas before you had a partially counted ballot so every office that you were eligible to vote for counted and everywhere you weren’t did not count, and I think that is one of the biggest things that has caused a change in enfranchisement vs. disenfranchisement.
Section 14: 9:34 – 9:47 (0:13)
KP: So the 1993 VRA or the Motor Voter Act was intended to up voter registration in North Carolina. How did you go about complying with that?
Section 15: 9:47 – 9:53 (0:06)
GB: That was the very first thing that I was doing…
Section 16: 9:53 – 13:19 (3:26)
GB: And I was very happy that we were able to comply with the Department of Justice at that time it was a section 5 voting rights state. We had 40 counties under voting rights section 5 program. We had more registered voters than anybody in the South, and we were the first in the South to comply. We came in at tenth of 50 states, and I thought that was a very good beginning. We were introducing a do it yourself form, and that worked out very well I remember the election officials saying at the time that if you cannot go before a registrar or board member and give that oath the elections were going to go to hell. In lieu of that oath was your signature under penalty of perjury.
It worked out well. In fact we were surprised at how well it did work out. We did not have to worry about putting in driver’s license for voting registration because that was done in 1986. We just needed to make it better, and so we had a step ahead of a lot of people. And then there was another provision that I would like to share with you, and that is if you were a public agency, and you were to go for a service by federal and state law you must be offered the ability to register to vote.
We did a fantastic job for the first few years, and I thought it was on autopilot. And then I got a call from some advocacy groups who knew me through my service as an election director in an association called NASOSD which was the National Association of State Directors, and they said we want to sue you, and I said why? And they saw and said where the drop-off was for these agencies not asking their clients if they wanted to register to vote, and what we found what happened…
First let me say that we gave these agencies some instructions and education by having teleconferences, and there was one where we had at least 2400 participating, so we gave them the initial information. It was a good job. And then like other things that happened, there were transitions like people going to find another job, and there was no education passed on, and so that’s how it dropped off. And I said, ‘Look let me see if we can right this ship, and so [we] came up with a 13 point program that became a national model, and it was used, and I’m very happy that we were able to do that.
Section 17: 13:19 – 13:26 (0:07)
KP: So was this model as well as having higher voter registration a pride for you personally?
Section 18: 13:26 – 13:35 (0:09)
GB: Yes, because for me, I don’t care how they vote as long as they’re legal and there’s opportunity to register.
Section 19: 13:35 – 14:03 (0:28)
KP: In 1996 in the General Election, voters waited in extremely long lines, which you said was the result of outdated provisions for absentee voting in North Carolina. How did the implementation of no excuse absentee voting and additional one stop voting sites reflect the needs of North Carolinians?
Section 20: 14:03 – 16:02 (1:59)
GB: You know I’d forgotten all about that. One of the things I can tell you is that those people… I can recall a legislator from the mountains saying that the only thing we’re doing is keeping people from lying about being out of town or sick. So with that said, what caused… it started in a general election which is kind of hard, usual you want to have a little pilot and a municipal election is good because you can see any type of procedures that need to be changed. It worked well and what caused the next thing to happen was extension of our early voting sites.
The correct name is one-stop absentee-voting, but the media used the term early voting so much so we just started calling it early voting because that’s what people understood. There were more sites, more hours open. People were able to come in, and one of the things we found out is that in the last 2/3/4 days in a general election, people are lined up just like they would be on Election Day. It turned out to be very popular, and I think it was a great move. I want to also say that the early voting period is utilized mostly during the presidential general election year but participation may vary from the type the election is. There are some municipal voting elections where you have an early voting period where people are hardly participating at all.
Section 21: 16:02 – 16:18 (0:16)
KP: You risked violating the state constitution to create an African American voting district that crossed county lines. What were you hoping to gain for voters in that district (looking at Bartlett v. Strickland?
Section 22: 16:18 – 16:36 (0:18)
GB: Oh that was a General Assembly battle. I had nothing to do with it. The reason why my name is at the beginning of the lawsuit is because I administer elections so they just use my name because they did not want anything administered.
Section 23: 16:36 – 16:51 (0:15)
DR: So did you have any concerns with the outcome of the case? Did it mean something to you that this happened or not or was it just…
Section 24: 16:51 – 17:22 (0:31)
GB: The approach that I took with any court case and with any legislation at the federal or state level that passed is that whatever the ruling is, we do it. It’s our job to implement it and I tried to stay away from likes and dislikes. Certainly through all the 20 years that I served, there were certain things that I really liked to do and then some things I didn’t but I did them anyway because that was my job.
Section 25: 17:22 – 17:32 (0:10)
KP: I guess my last question for you would then be, how do you evaluate your work for the two years of the election board?
Section 26: 17:32 – 20:23 (2:51)
GB: As I mentioned earlier, I really enjoyed the work. We were able to do a lot of good things since I told you about the education part and the research with the website library. We put in the third or fourth statewide voting registration and management system. I think the only two before was Kentucky and Louisiana. I was very proud to try to modernize the state board of election. I also was very happy that we were able to do other things like help implement a lot of new changes that the General Assembly came up with.
Probably the one that I mentioned earlier that I’m the most proud of was allowing access to second chance for participating in voter registration. There are a lot of other things that I am certain were good, probably what you mention has had more impact than anything else and that was no excuse absentee voting and it was needed. There’s no reason why you can’t do that.
Also, another thing that we did was we put in a uniform voter registration systems. We had…well first of all, we started out with request for proposals, and we thought we had about three vendors who would be participating. And two of them backed out because they did not like some of the requirements we made them put up a bond in case something went wrong with the election, and we also said their software had to be escrowed.
They said that those two things made it too difficult for them to do business, and I was disappointed at first because there’s not too much competition. I found out that it was so much easier dealing with one company because we could have uniform standards, and one of the standards that made it very, very easy and was critical in elections, and that is logic and accuracy testing to ensure that the mark ballot is read properly by the machine and tallied. That sounds easy, but it is not, and there’s a lot of work behind that.
Section 27: 20:23 – 20:45 (0:22)
DR: One of our other interviews for this project in our class, someone was uncomfortable with registering to vote at the DMV… how do you feel about that, the idea that people are eligible for driver’s licenses if they’re not eligible to vote, that there could be a mistake. How do you feel about that?
Section 28: 20:45 – 21:04 (0:19)
GB: Well certainly if there is a mistake or missing information, it is the responsibility of the county board of elections to try to get that information, and if they do not get that information where you get the essential parts, then that application is denied.
Section 29: 21:04 – 21:13 (0:09)
DR: But is the fact that there could be a mistake, do you think that that’s too risky?
Section 30: 21:13 – 21:23 (0:10)
GB: If there is a mistake, it is a correctable mistake. There is a provision in the law to allow for that. But there is a period of time that you must have it done by.
Section 31: 21:23 – 21:55 (0:32)
GB: And like I said earlier, the driver’s license is probably the ID that produces the most voter registrations, during my time it oscillated between 63 and 68 percent, and then you have other agencies like social services. I would say that there is more mistakes made in those other agencies than driver’s licenses.
Section 32: 21:55 – 22:10 (0:15)
DR: Because we’re on the subject, voter fraud. Where did voter fraud stand during your time on the election board? How big, how small, and what’s sort of the acceptable level, in your opinion.
Section 33: 22:10 – 26:30 (4:20)
GB: Well first of all, I don’t think that there’s any acceptable level. Whatever there’s wrong you need to give it to the appropriate prosecutors and let them determine the appropriate action that’s taken. Once it leaves our hands it’s their… Most of our issues, we did not have a lot of fraud. Let me tell you the kinds of fraud that we might have had. Let’s take double voting. If you will recall, right before the passage of 589, there was a testimony that there might be as many as 36,000 double voters.
We knew – I knew it was not that. And everybody was saying, this is the fraud we’re talking about, this is the fraud, and I was even asked by the editorial board of the News and Observer what did I think, and I says, if you look at all of the absentee ballots, you might come up with two dozen, and it ended up being six referrals. We had gone through this with other things like, for instance, we had a complaint filed with us that there were U.S. citizens registered to vote that when they went to court, the reason they could not do jury duty is they said that they were not citizens. [Of] course that was a separate issue, but the person that brought the complaint was saying, these were fraudulent voters because they’re not a citizen. And of course when we ended up doing that we referred about three or four. So I knew that those types of things.
Another thing that I’d like to mention about the 36,000, there are a lot of John Smiths, Steve Jones and birth dates. I’d like to give you one of my favorite stories about how perception is not always real. When we first implemented our state-wide voter registration system, it was the first time that we could audit across county lines. And I had the director of IT and his assistant coming in there and says, Mr. Bartlett, we caught this one. I said, please tell us what we caught. We got a felon that escaped. Something like four or five years ago, and they’re back at the same house, and they voted in this general election. They says, let’s turn this over to the DA’s office. I says, no we’ve got to investigate it first.
So we turned it over to the Department of Corrections, and these are the facts: in 1993 there was a person convicted of a felony and then escaped from prison. And then at that same house, this person – same name, same house – voted. And once the Department of Corrections were able to do their research, they found out that person who was living there – well, first, the convicted felon was five-foot-three. The person with the same name and birth date was five-foot-eight and a reporter for the News and Observer. Seriously. Those things happen. Just chance. You would be assuming on the outside looking in, same name, same birth date, end of story. I tell you what, there’s some mighty funny things to happen in elections.
Section 34: 26:30 – 26:33 (0:03)
DR: So how could you tell when there actually was voter fraud?
Section 35: 26:33 – 26:46 (0:13)
GB: Well, for instance, some double voting, there were people who were challenging the system. Those automatically went to the district attorney for prosecution…
Section 36: 26:46 – 26:47 (0:01)
DR: How could you find them?
Section 37: 26:47 – 28:37 (1:50)
GB: Oh, we check after every election who voted in the early period versus who voted in person during the general election during Election Day. We also check against driver’s licenses. There’s a provision in there whether you’re a citizen or non-citizen. We check that, and we also check the death files.
And I’ll tell you a good death story too, if you want me to. Give you an example, like in 2008, I did not know the exact numbers, but there were something like 20 or 24 double votes. We found out that two or three of them were people who were testing the system, and then were about five to eight people with dementia.
And then there was one military guy who just got back from serving in Afghanistan, and he kept on calling to make sure the Board of Elections had his mail-in absentee ballot, and we had documentation that on the deadline for absentee, he thought that his thing did not come in, but it came in like that Monday before the election which, at that time it had to be in before election day; now you’ve got three days after the election. But he did not know that, so he went and voted. He wanted to make sure that he participated, and it ended up where he was double voting, and of course…
Section 38: 28:37 – 28:44 (0:07)
GB: …knowing that he was trying to do the right thing we did not refer that one.
Section 39: 28:44 – 28:48 (0:04)
DR: Is there anything else you might have missed?
Section 40: 28:48 – 29:33 (0:45)
GB: I would think that we were able to capture just, a lot of things… can it happen, and did it happen? Possibly. Another example of voting in someone other’s name: there was a gentleman in Beaufort County that voted his deceased dad’s ballot because he wanted to vote twice, and he got prosecuted. The thing about it is, we had a handful of things, but we did not have voting that was wholesale, and every time we had enough evidence we would turn it over to the district attorney.
Section 41: 29:33 – 29:42 (0:09)
DR: So obviously the rules are more stringent now with House Bill 589. Do you think any of the measures in that bill that try to…?
Section 42: 29:42 – 29:56 (0:14)
GB: I don’t think it’s changed anything. I think it’s about the same. We do not have a fraud problem. There are more mistakes made by election officials than there is fraudulent votes.
Section 43: 29:56 – 30:08 (0:12)
DR: The Board of Elections is supposed to be a nonpartisan organization, at least, in theory.
Section 44: 30:08 – 30:10 (0:02)
GB: They are bipartisan.
Section 45: 30:10 – 30:20 (0:10)
DR: Bipartisan. But there is turnover on the board every time the governor’s office changes parties. You were serving under mostly Democrats I believe…
Section 46: 30:20 – 30:28 (0:08)
GB: It’s a 2-to-1 ratio on the county level and a 3-2 on the state level.
Section 47: 30:28 – 30:40 (0:12)
DR: How do you try to be unbiased and try not to favor one party or the other when you’re on the board?
Section 48: 30:40 – 31:11 (0:31)
GB: It’s easy for the staff. We just take it out of the mix. We leave the politics at the board level, and sometimes it tries to seep in, but one thing I can tell you about every board I served on, they tried hard to work together, and when they had differences, they did not allow those differences to get away in good judgment. Were there partisan votes? Yes, but most of the time they were not. I had more male-female splits than I did party splits.
Section 49: 31:11 – 31:21 (0:10)
DR: Right now, the current Board of Elections director is married to a lawyer with Republican connections. Is that a conflict of interest? Is that a problem?
Section 50: 31:21 – 31:25 (0:04)
GB: I’m going to let them worry about that problem.
Section 51: 31:25 – 31:27 (0:02)
DR: So you’re saying it is a problem?
Section 52: 31:27 – 31:29 (0:02)
GB: I’m going to let them worry about that.
Section 53: 31:29 – 31:42 (0:13)
DR: So you’ve discussed a lot how the voting process should be fair. Currently, under House Bill 589 the rules are technically the same for everyone, but does it make voting unfair, in your opinion?
Section 54: 31:42 – 32:40 (0:58)
GB: Well I think that the difference is that there are limitations and roadblocks to enfranchisement, and I believe that you should have an easy process to register to vote, and you should have an easy voting process, and it should be so that it is accessible.
One of the things that I have learned that’s really under the radar screen is how the elderly and the poor have tremendous transportation issues to go wherever they vote, and usually they do not have the wherewithal to understand mail absentee voting. So we need a good civics class for everybody. I think civics and civility would be something that would be a very good thing to have at this point in time.
Section 55: 32:40 – 32:50 (0:10)
DR: Do you think that the supporters of House Bill 589 believe fundamentally that the bill affects some people’s ability to vote more than others?
Section 56: 32:50 – 33:18 (0:28)
GB: I would say that I believe that the supporters think that they are doing the right thing, and I think that there’s areas that they think, this just doesn’t make sense; we should do it this way; if it hurts somebody, it’s their fault for not following the rules. That’s how I think they think. I may be wrong. And those that are on the other side say hey, you’re disenfranchising.
Section 57: 33:18 – 33:23 (0:05)
DR: Do you think the bill makes voting unfair?
Section 58: 33:23 – 35:11 (1:48)
GB: I think there are parts of that bill – some of that has been changed. For instance, at the very beginning, I did not like how the voter ID was set up. I gave my plan to both the Democrats and the Republicans, and neither one of them wanted it.
And it was a very simple plan, and it would be very doable, and that is, for those that did not have proper photo ID that first of all we would receive from them what is called HAVA identification, which is federal law, which, if you present some type of government letter with your name and address that verified who you were and where you lived and also was expanded to include utility bills and other things of that nature, then you could vote, register to vote.
And so what I suggested was that when someone showed up without their driver’s license or acceptable ID, you take that verification that they brought in, these HAVA documents; you take a picture and put it on the screen, and we have a way which we could capture all the driver’s license pictures so, if somebody showed up all we had to do was look at the screen. And then for the next election, for those that did not have their driver’s license you’d have the picture. They were too busy fighting about all the different issues of the bill, so that was never considered.
Section 59: 35:11 – 35:18 (0:07)
DR: So you said, if done right, mandating photo IDs wouldn’t change anything about voting. Why?
Section 60: 35:18 – 35:35 (0:17)
GB: It shouldn’t because right now you could sign an affidavit saying that you truly are who you are, and your vote will count. A good example of that is Senator Burr. He had to use that procedure, and I don’t think his vote wasn’t counted.
Section 61: 35:35 – 35:47 (0:12)
DR: So you were ok with registered voters not listing birth dates and obviously out-of-precinct voting…
Section 62: 35:47 – 35:53 (0:06)
GB: Not listing birth dates? You have to. That’s a required thing on the application for your voter registration.
Section 63: 35:53 – 36:03 (0:10)
DR: It wasn’t… let me rephrase that then. Was at some point it not, and people were listed as being born on January 1, 1900?
Section 64: 36:03 – 36:54 (0:51)
GB: That is correct. That is before we had a statewide voter registration system. Before the law did not require a birth date. It required a birth date beginning with the legislation, the NVRA, it was passed in North Carolina in ’94, ’93 on the feds but implemented in 1995 in North Carolina, and we had the do-it-yourself form for that legacy data.
If there was not any way that we could find a date then we gave them a general date so that we could just continue into the system, and then we tried, whenever they showed up for voting or some other business at the Board of Elections office, then we would flag to try to get their birth dates.
Section 65: 36:54 – 37:01 (0:07)
DR: But they were continued to allow to vote – correct me if I’m wrong – if their birth dates were not listed?
Section 66: 37:01 – 37:10 (0:09)
GB: They were duly registered voters because they were registered by the rules at that time. It was not ‘til ’95 that that changed.
Section 67: 37:10 – 37:19 (0:09)
DR: Some of your detractors and people who are now on the board saw that as a problem, allowing people to continue to vote who had registered under the previous rules.
Section 68: 37:19 – 37:23 (0:04)
GB: That would beg a lawsuit very quick.
Section 69: 37:23 – 37:30 (0:07)
DR: These people, if I’m correct, are no longer required to list birth dates to continue voting?
Section 70: 37:30 – 37:59 (0:29)
GB: It is the responsibility of the Board of Elections to try to flag those people. I would say that most people that would fall under that category now – and I have not seen those records for a long time – I would say that they have got to be anywhere from mid-60s upwards. I would say that those that were younger, it’s not an issue.
Section 71: 37:59 – 38:09 (0:10)
DR: You said that you don’t think that late registration has a significant impact on voter turnout.
Section 72: 38:09 – 38:10 (0:01)
GB: Well it doesn’t.
Section 73: 38:10 – 38:11 (0:01)
DR: Why?
Section 74: 38:11 – 38:55 (0:44)
GB: A good example is primaries. During my tenure Republican and Democratic and Libertarian, you would have anywhere from a 15% to 32% or 33% turnout, mainly in the mid-20s. And you would have lots of registrants who were eligible to vote. For some reason, they have chosen not to participate. But then again, we had, in 2008 somewhere around 69-70% turnout, and of course, that is good.
Section 75: 38:55 – 38:59 (0:04)
DR: But so does it matter if late registration is an option?
Section 76: 38:59 – 40:02 (1:03)
GB: You need a record to ensure that you know who is eligible to vote is who they are, and you need some type of documentation. There are systems around the world where you don’t have to go through that process. That is basically what they do, and they have for that jurisdiction a list of everybody who is eligible at that time before they go in and vote.
I don’t know what processes they have to verify that they’re on the list, but they do not have voter registration. I think that North Dakota, they’re one of seven states that you can register and vote on Election Day. To me, I think that you have got to have a little better control than that.
Section 77: 40:02 – 40:11 (0:09)
DR: What do you think should be the requirements for someone to register to vote or come in and vote? What should be required of an individual to be allowed to vote?
Section 78: 40:11 – 41:32 (1:21)
GB: Well first of all, I think that registering to vote, the application is about as fair as you can get. The most important piece of information on that application is where you reside. That is the beginning point for what you’re eligible to vote for and what district you participate in, whether it be a school district, county commission, or municipal (garbled), and you have it verified by either the last four digits of your social security number or your driver’s license number.
Whenever there is none of those two, there are procedures that you can still have it accepted. So I think that that part is very good. On the other hand, as far as going and presenting yourself at the polls, I would like something similar to what I shared with you earlier. I think that what we have got to do is be able to verify and not be intrusive or unfair about it. That’s basically how I view it.
Section 79: 41:32 – 41:42 (0:10)
DR: But is there anything about what a certain person does in the process of registering that makes them more or less qualified in your opinion?
Section 80: 41:42 – 42:11 (0:29)
GB: In registering? To give you an example, most are do-it-yourself. Sometimes we have voter registration drives where there will be people who help somebody fill it out, and then they have to have their name at the very bottom. They’ve got to sign it. I’m not quite sure I’m hitting on what you’re trying to ask.
Section 81: 42:11 – 42:25 (0:14)
DR: Well obviously the process is more restrictive now. Are there certain things that you fundamentally disagree with the current Board of Elections from what should be required from people in order to vote?
Section 82: 42:25 – 43:19 (0:54)
GB: Well first of all I think that the voting ID law has changed, to me, where it is acceptable, because they only have to sign that document, and it’s provisional until it’s checked out, and then it’s counted if it’s truthful or not. As it relates to the second chance of registering, I’m glad they put it back in the legislation. I would say that I would not disenfranchise anyone from voting in the wrong precinct that was eligible for certain races. To me, I think that is probably the biggest harm in that bill, aside from some of the campaign finance laws that were taken out.
Section 83: 43:19 – 43:29 (0:10)
DR: Why do you think that the people that currently are running the board view out-of-precinct voting as such a problem?
Section 84: 43:29 – 44:01 (0:32)
GB: I don’t think it’s the board. The board is doing what the law says. I think you’ve got to go back to the General Assembly because they’re the ones who passed it, and I think from what I have heard is that there is some carping by some of the county boards that this process took too long, and during general election years it just overwhelmed them to get it done within ten days of canvas. But during my tenure, it always happened.
Section 85: 44:01 – 44:06 (0:05)
DR: Do you think that they view it as unfair in any way?
Section 86: 44:06 – 44:38 (0:32)
GB: They would not say it’s inconvenient for them, but the underlying theme is inconvenient to do this because it is a manual process, and then you have to count those ballots. So yes, it is work on their part, but why do you disenfranchise someone because of a mistake when they’re eligible to vote for some offices?
Section 87: 44:38 – 44:57 (0:19)
DR: Going back a few years to when you were on the board, the 2008 election, you wouldn’t say that Obama had won North Carolina until all the provisional votes had been counted. Can you explain why exactly you made that decision?
Section 88: 44:57 – 45:23 (0:26)
GB: It was not my decision; it was law that no results could be published until the polls close. There was no reason why you should when people were still voting, and the last thing you want to do is influence how somebody votes. It’s their precious way of saying how they want their government to run.
Section 89: 45:23 – 45:41 (0:18)
DR: So what does that say about how you value a single vote? What does one person’s single vote mean on a mathematical level but even on a philosophical level?
Section 90: 45:41 – 46:42 (1:01)
GB: Well first of all, one vote does make a difference. There were several elections during my tenure that were one vote, or it was a tie, especially in municipal elections. There’s got to be a winner, and during ties if you’re a jurisdiction of 5000 or less, you do it by pulling the straw or name out of a hat to determine the winner. Over 5000 you have a new election. I would say there was one municipal year where we had, between ties and one or two vote winners, there was about 36 of them. So it does count. One vote does count. And I truly believe that every eligible voter should.
Section 91: 46:42 – 47:05 (0:23)
DR: Looking back now, it’s been about three years since you left, do you feel that your work has been compromised? How does it make you feel that so much of what you did to increase voting and allowing every eligible voter to have their say… how do you feel about that now?
Section 92: 47:05 – 47:46 (0:41)
GB: Well first of all, I really am thankful that I had the opportunity to administer these things that were passed. It was our job. The current Board of Elections is doing the same thing, administering what the legislature has passed. There are things that I would not do, but I’m not gonna worry about it because, number one, I’m not there. There’s no way to really look back. You just look forward. And if there is another day where something could happen to make a difference for enfranchisement, I might support it, but right now I’m happy where I’m at.
Section 93: 47:46 – 47:51 (0:05)
DR: So is there regret at all?
Section 94: 47:51 – 48:07 (0:16)
GB: I don’t look at it that way. I look at them doing their jobs. Like I say, there’s some things I don’t like, but I’m not going to dwell on it. I’m just going to go forward.
Section 95: 48:07 – 48:22 (0:15)
DR: Is there anything else that you want to add?
Section 96: 48:22 – 49:24 (1:02)
GB: I’m certain that when I get back in the car and go to Goldsboro I’ll be thinking of a lot of things.
DR: Of course.
GB: One of the things that, this is just a thought that you need to understand, between all this ebb and flow, there is a lot of misinformation, a lot of misunderstanding, and it usually that someone wants to advocate their opinion as fact, and that’s where a lot of misunderstandings evolve. And what I would like is to see more communication, more people working together, and try to resolve it and be civil about it. I think that civility has left the whole political process, no matter what level it is on.
Section 97: 49:24 – 49:34 (0:10)
GB: Of course I would like there to be election civics classes given to the general public so they have a better understanding of what the laws are and what their rights and responsibilities are.
Section 98: 49:34 – 49:54 (0:20)
DR: Do you think there’s been any deliberate attempts by North Carolina government – or not even North Carolina specifically – but just governments to, with the passage of bills that may cause some controversy, to deliberately mislead?
Section 99: 49:54 – 50:36 (0:42)
GB: I don’t think that they believe it’s deliberately misleading. I think that they believe the Kool-Aid that they drink. I think that, like I said earlier, that they have an opinion, and then they get enough information where they think that it’s fact, and they just advocate for their position. And I can assure you that behind what I said, there’s always, how can we control to stay in power?
Section 100: 50:36 – 50:45 (0:09)
DR: Do you think, for the people that passed this bill, that that was in more than just the back of their minds? This is how we stay in power?
Section 101: 50:45 – 50:50 (0:05)
GB: I’m not going to guess how they think because I could be totally wrong.
Section 102: 50:50 – 50:53 (0:03)
DR: Does the fact that that’s a possibility bother you?
Section 103: 50:53 – 51:03 (0:10)
GB: Like I say, I try not to let those things bother me now. I am no longer in the elections business.
Section 104: 51:03 – 51:08 (0:05)
DR: Did it bother you, say, six months after you left the board as opposed to now?
Section 105: 51:08 – 51:30 (0:22)
GB: I kept up with what was in the newspapers, but that was the only thing I kept up with. Except when I got deposed. I got deposed for the election lawsuits in federal court. And that took a large chunk out of my time, but it’s a civic duty.
Section 106: 51:30 – 51:35 (0:05)
DR: Was it a hard decision for you to say yes to that?
Section 107: 51:35 – 51:41 (0:06)
GB: No. Once you get a subpoena, how are you gonna get out if it?
Section 108: 51:41 – 51:47 (0:06)
DR: Were there mixed emotions about getting back involved in that?
Section 109: 51:47 – 52:13 (0:26)
GB: I thought that it was a civic duty, that I have more knowledge than anybody else about the election laws during that period. It was appropriate… though aggravating.
