Single campus precinct unlikely to pass

Superprecincts will not be appearing in Chapel Hill this November, and they might not come at all.

The superprecincts measure, which would allow voters in the Chapel Hill township to cast their ballots in any southern precinct in the county, was struck down in early September by a member of the Orange County Board of Elections.

Sen. Ellie Kinnaird, D-Orange, sponsored the bill, which passed the N.C. General Assembly in August.

"The vote for the local board of elections had to be unanimous for the superprecincts," Kinnaird said.

The vote rode on three members of the county board of elections.

For superprecincts to become a reality, the legislature might have to pass an amendment allowing for a majority vote of approval by the board.

William Knight, a member of the board of elections, was the only dissenting vote against the superprecinct.

Knight said he voted against the measure because it did not include a provision for voter identification.

He said the board sent a letter to the General Assembly asking that it include mandatory voter identification in the superprecinct legislation.

Kinnaird said she did not want voter identification included in the bill because it could intimidate potential voters.

"It can be used to deny people votes, because it can make it very difficult," she said.

She said that without a driver's license, the obstacle of finding acceptable identification could dissuade voters.

Sen. Andrew Brock, R-Davie, said identification was a critical part of living in the world today and should not be left out of voting.

"It should be mandatory," he said. "You can't get on a plane, train or motor machine without identification."

Brock said he also was concerned about how superprecinct voting would affect funding for voting in his district.

"If Orange County is trying this new project and buying more machines, that's going to cut into our share," he said.

Others said superprecincts could lead to big problems instead of big voter turnout.

Carolyn Thomas, director of elections for Orange County, said southern Orange County would have had problems if the superprecincts had been implemented.

"Each place needed to be handicap accessible, have a real-time computer and be available for a week," she said. "There was no way we could have done it this November."

The Internet was included in superprecinct voting so that election officials could check an online database to prevent voting fraud.

Rep. Bill Faison, D-Orange, said superprecincts are advantageous in an urban setting like Chapel Hill but would hurt voter turnout in rural communities like northern Orange County.

"In most of northern Orange County there is no high-speed Internet," he said.

"The plan as presented gave (northern Orange County) voters fewer places to vote."

The benefits of superprecinct voting might have been more obvious on campus. Kinnaird said students often are confused and frustrated by the current voting precincts.

"They came to me and said they still didn't know where their precincts were," she said.

Student Body Vice President Adrian Johnston said he is disappointed the measure won't come to fruition.

"It's a good thing all around," he said. "It's a good thing for students of all political colors."

Seth Dearmin, student body president, said voter identification became a sticking point for Republicans while the bill was discussed.

"It became a partisan issue in the House," he said. "It throws a huge wrench in the plans."

Dearmin said he plans on following up on the superprecinct issue by talking to the members of the board of elections and Kinnaird to find a compromise.

 

Contact the State & National Editor at stntdesk@unc.edu.