Stop the NCSBE from Finding New Ways to Purge Voters

UPDATE (3/16/2026): The State Board of Elections (NCSBE) Public Comment Portal only allows you to comment on one rule at a time. There are four proposed rule changes.  We believe the most important ones to comment on are the ones entitled “Entry of Challenge” and “Challenge Hearing”.

Instructions for Submitting Comments

1. In the first field of the Comment Form, select “08 NCAC 23 .0102 (Entry of Challenge)” from the drop-down. Enter your Name, Email, and Comments in the following fields, then hit SUBMIT.

2. Repeat the process, this time selecting “08 NCAC 23 .0104 (Challenge Hearing)” from the drop-down.

Message Points to Draw From

Objections to the “Entry of Challenge” rule change:

• The NCSBE should reinstate a sworn testimony requirement. Under current law, a challenge without sworn testimony dies at a preliminary hearing. Someone has to put their name on it. Removing that requirement removes the only accountability mechanism for challenges filed in bad faith or based on bad data.
• The NCSBE should require individual, documented review before a challenge is filed. Under the proposed rule change, the State Board can flag any registered voter and the County Board must automatically issue a challenge to that voter. County directors should have to investigate the claim first, then produce a written affidavit confirming that the evidence is sufficient to warrant a challenge before a challenge goes out.

Objections to the “Challenge Hearing” rule change:

• The no-show provision is absolutely unacceptable. Under this proposed change, if a challenged voter doesn’t appear at the hearing for any reason, the non-citizenship notice gets treated as proof sufficient to sustain the challenge. An unverfied challenge, which might well be based on bad data, gets turned into a default judgment.
• Current rules already require citizenship. The no-show provision converts an unverified government notice, very possibly based on bad data, into a default judgment.
• A challenge notice should not function as proof: it should trigger a process. Sustaining a challenge should be based on clear evidence that someone is not a citizen, not on the absence of a response to a government mailing.

The North Carolina State Board of Elections (NCSBE)  is quietly finalizing rules that could purge thousands of eligible voters from the rolls.

The public comment window closes at midnight on Monday, March 16, and what’s at stake demands attention. The proposed rule changes rely on a system called Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements or SAVE, a notoriously unreliable federal database, to flag and remove registered voters suspected of not being citizens. Proponents claim this protects election integrity, but the data simply doesn’t support it.

A nationwide Brennan Center for Justice study of the 2016 election found that across 42 jurisdictions covering 23.5 million votes, election officials referred just 30 suspected incidents of noncitizen voting for investigation. That is 0.0001% of all votes cast. Forty of those 42 jurisdictions reported zero known incidents of noncitizen voting. In the counties with the largest noncitizen populations in the country, nearly all reported zero incidents. In California, Virginia, and New Hampshire — the very states where noncitizen voting was claimed to be rampant — not a single election official could identify one instance of it happening.

What These Rules Actually Do

• They rely on a database that misidentifies citizens: NC’s own State Board of Elections has previously stated that the SAVE database is “not a reliable indicator” of citizenship. In Missouri, 35% of voters flagged by this tool turned out to be citizens registered at naturalization ceremonies. These are real people whose voting rights were put at risk by a flawed system.
• They could be used to remove voters shortly before an election: The National Voter Registration Act prohibits mass, systematic voter removals within 90 days of a federal election. Voters removed close to an election have almost no time to correct errors before casting a ballot. The proposed rules make no mention of this legal requirement.
• They will fall hardest on women, immigrants, and rural voters: More than 2.3 million female citizens in NC do not have a valid birth certificate that matches their current legal name. People who became citizens through a parent’s naturalization may have no individual paperwork at all. Obtaining official citizenship documents can cost more than $1,300 and take several months to process. The proposed rules do not account for any of this.
• The notice process is not adequate: The current rules require only one mailed notice, in English. If that notice is not delivered, the voter has no way of knowing their registration is under challenge. A voter who misses a hearing they never knew about can have their registration canceled based solely on a database flag, with no independent confirmation and no opportunity to respond.
• Non-response is treated as proof of ineligibility: If a voter does not appear at their challenge hearing — whether because they never received notice, could not take time off work, or do not speak English — the proposed rules treat that absence as grounds to cancel their registration. That standard will predictably remove eligible citizens from the rolls.

ACTION: Tell the NCSB that Profiling Voters Is WRONG!

Submit a public comment to the NCSBE. But hurry. The public comment period closes at 11:59 p.m. on Monday, March 16th. Comments will be compiled and provided to the State Board for its review before its final consideration of the proposed rules.

NOTE: If you or someone you know receives a notice challenging a voter registration, do not ignore it — contact your county board of elections immediately and reach out to Democracy North Carolina for support.

Source: Democracy NC