From Honor System to Verification: Restore Accurate Voter Rolls
- 6 hours ago
- 18 min read
We the People Newsletter By: Carol L. Snow | May 4, 2026 |
Hello, faithful WTP Newsletter readers!
Yikes! It’s been nearly two weeks since the last WTP Newsletter was published. The Meddling Kids have been juggling quite a few moving parts behind the scenes, and your patience is appreciated. In this issue we'll cover:
1. Two quick updates
2. The first two practical steps toward transitioning from the current Honor System to a true Eligibility Verification System. |
As always, you’ll find full documentation, sources, and meeting transcripts in the Details & Resources section at the bottom of this newsletter.
Quick Updates on Transparency
Public Records RequestsOn April 28, 2026, two public records requests were submitted regarding the federal SAVE program:
The Public Information Director responded that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is still processing some records.
While it is understandable that the NCSBE does not yet wish to release the data file received back from SAVE identifying the 34,000 potentially deceased individuals (since staff is still verifying those records), it is not clear why the NCSBE is unwilling to release the voter record file submitted to SAVE on April 17, 2026 (with confidential information redacted). That file is simply a subset of North Carolina’s own voter registration list, which the NCSBE already posts publicly every Sunday evening on its FTP site.
Instead, the NCSBE intends to release only aggregate or summarized information at a later date (mid-to-late May).
HAVA Complaint #8 The State Board has scheduled a remote WebEx meeting to reconvene the hearing for May 7th at 2:00 p.m.
At this session, Executive Director Hayes is expected to announce his recommendation regarding HAVA Complaint #8 — either that a HAVA violation occurred or that the complaint should be dismissed. The Board will later vote to accept or reject his recommendation.
The original 90-day deadline for the Board's decision was May 5, 2026. The Executive Director requested a 30-day extension, which the complainant granted, moving the deadline to June 5, 2026.
The hearing will not be livestreamed, but it will be audio or video recorded and made available afterward. Livestreaming the remote meeting would likely require additional staff resources, so this may be the primary reason the public will need to wait for the recording. |
Solutions to Verify Eligibility: The First Two Practical Steps
Realistically, reversing 15+ years of gradual drift from a Limited Verification System to today’s heavy reliance on the Honor System will not happen overnight, nor can it be fully addressed in a single newsletter. So we will take this step by step.
The most fundamental place to start is this:
We must ensure that the five appointed members of the State Board of Elections actually honor the oath they took when they assumed office.
Stop right there.
Why is this even a question?
Because of what was said — and not said — during the State Board of Elections meeting on April 16, 2026.
The oath taken by each board member requires them to earnestly attempt to "support, maintain, and defend the Constitution" of the State of North Carolina and to "well and truly execute the duties of the office… according to law." |
After the 2024 General Election, it was reported that 77.59% of the voting public in North Carolina agreed that "only a citizen of the United States... shall be entitled to vote at any election in this State."
To understand why I’m curious whether all board members continue to fully support, maintain, and defend North Carolina’s State Constitution as it now reads, let’s review what was stated during three separate segments of that April 16, 2026 meeting.
During this agenda item, the State Board members were discussing and voting on the rules for non-citizen list maintenance — in other words, the process by which ineligible non-citizens would be removed from the incomplete portion of North Carolina’s voter rolls that was actually submitted to the federal SAVE system. (Note: Approximately 349,000 eligible registration records were not included in that submission.)
Segment 1 - 4/16/2026 meeting; timestamp 1:19:18 Board Member Jeff Carmon expressed strong disagreement with the federal government’s plan to include certain non-citizens in the automatic Selective Service registration process— which could potentially require them to be called for military service in a national emergency. He highlighted what he saw as the hypocrisy that these same individuals would not be allowed to vote.
His key comment: "The most tragic part of all of this for me is… if the federal government is saying that an undocumented man can go and die for our country, they’re saying he can go and die for a country he cannot vote in."
Segment 2 - 4/16/2026 meeting; timestamp 1:44:07 Later, in an exchange with Board Member Four Eggers, Mr. Carmon reiterated his concern. He again highlighted what he views as the hypocrisy of requiring non-citizens to register for Selective Service while still prohibiting them from voting in North Carolina elections.
Mr. Carmon stated: "We are now saying you have to carry your papers… We are saying you have to show your papers to prove you’re a citizen of this country so that you can vote… President Trump just signed recently the National Defense Authorization Act, which is going to automatically register every male for selective service — green card holders, refugees, asylum seekers and undocumented men..."
Segment 3 - 4/16/2026 meeting; timestamp 1:54:21 As the board prepared to vote on the proposed rules, Board Member Jeff Carmon then directly challenged the constitutional requirement that only U.S. citizens may vote in North Carolina elections. He argued that because the federal government is now requiring non-citizen males between the ages of 18 and 26 to register for Selective Service (and potentially serve in the military), it is inconsistent and unfair to prohibit them from voting.
Key comments from that exchange:
Board Member Jeff Carmon (addressing veteran Board Chair Frances DeLuca): "Before you go on — so are you going to support this? … Why wouldn't you? Because you stated previously you fought for this country… now they're going to be undocumented men that's going to do the same thing that you did, but they will not be able to [vote]…But if you go to war… as an undocumented person, you could very well lose your life… You were registered by this new National Defense Authorization Act and that's OK."
This final exchange suggests that at least one member of the State Board of Elections has difficulty supporting Article VI, Section 1 of the North Carolina Constitution as it was amended by the voters in November 2024.
It appears Mr. Carmon could more easily honor his oath of office if our State's Constitution read as follows:
North Carolina Constitution ARTICLE VI, Section 1 (version Mr. Carmon appears willing to support) "Only a citizen of the United States who is 18 years of age — and every non-citizen male between the ages of 18 and 26 living in the United States if required to register for the Selective Service — and possessing the qualifications set out in this Article, shall be entitled to vote at any election by the people of the State, except as herein otherwise provided."
Since that is not the current law of our land, the first step toward transitioning from the current Honor System to a true Eligibility Verification System is simple:
Step 1 The appointed State Board of Elections members who took their oath of office prior to the National Defense Authorization Act becoming law on December 18, 2025, should publicly renew their commitment to "support, maintain, and defend the Constitution of the State of North Carolina" and to "well and truly execute the duties of the office… according to law" as the Constitution now reads. (Note: The provision at issue is Sec. 535 (page 155) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026.)
This is not a partisan issue. Although the author is a registered Republican and Board Member Carmon is a registered Democrat, the concern is not political affiliation. It is whether every board member is willing to uphold North Carolina’s Constitution as it was amended and approved by the voters in November 2024, regardless of whether they personally agree with the voters. |
Second Practical Step: Verify Citizenship Using North Carolina's Own DMV Database
During the April 16 meeting, two board members expressed significant concern about the reliability of the federal SAVE system. Board Member Siobhan Millen stated she would support a citizenship verification database in principle, but does not trust SAVE: "I actually would be in favor of a citizenship comparison and a database. I just don't think SAVE is it. It's been shown that it is not a very reliable tool."
Board Member Jeff Carmon went further, expressing "disdain" for the SAVE database.
There is a straightforward, state-controlled solution that can be used in addition to SAVE: North Carolina can verify citizenship status directly through its own Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) database using the driver’s license number or DMV-issued identification card number already required by federal law (HAVA).
This is exactly what HAVA Complaint #8 addresses. For years, two separate but related failures have prevented effective DMV-based verification: 1. For 15 years, the NCSBE’s voter registration applications treated a driver’s license number (or DMV-issued ID) and the last four digits of a Social Security number as interchangeable. In practice, this meant the registration forms did not clearly require applicants who had been issued a North Carolina driver’s license or DMV-issued ID to provide that number — even though federal law (HAVA) specifically and clearly requires it.
2. The SEIMS system was - and still is - programmed to skip verification of a provided DL#/DMV-ID when it failed to match the DMV database and instead falls back to verifying only the SSN4 with the Social Security Administration.
Step 2
This approach uses a reliable, in-state database the NCSBE already has access to and puts North Carolina in control of its own voter-roll accuracy.
Closing We’ve now walked through the first two practical steps needed to begin moving North Carolina from the current Honor System back to a true Eligibility Verification System.
Reversing 15+ years of gradual drift will take time and continued effort, but these foundational steps are achievable and essential if we are serious about maintaining accurate voter rolls while protecting every verifiably eligible citizen’s right to vote.
In the next newsletter, we’ll continue with additional common-sense solutions. As always, thank you for staying engaged and informed on this important issue.
Sincerely,Carol L. Snow |
Details & Resources |
I encourage you to verify this information for yourself. If you find anything that appears misstated or outdated, please reply to this email — I’m happy to provide a correction or clarification.
Note: Because the NCSBE stopped publishing public records requests submitted after June 10, 2024, you will need to contact Director of External Affairs Jason Tyson (Jason.Tyson@ncsbe.gov) to obtain copies of the records requests and NCSBE-provided documents referenced below. |
NCSBE Press Release - April 27, 2026 |
Public Records Requests #26-149 - April 28, 2026 Requesting the 7,397,734 voter registration records (out of approx 7,746,700 eligible registrations) submitted to SAVE. |
#26-150 - April 28, 2026 Requesting the ~34,000 potentially deceased voter registration records as noted by SAVE. |
NCSBE Response sent to both requests: (No reason given to denying the request for the voter registration records submitted to SAVE). |
Voter Registration Data - NCSBE - Statewide - 4/19/2026 Status Code: Active/Inactive only (Eligible Voters) |
These are the same figures from the April 22, 2026 WTP, summarized by SSN4 status (obtained and verified). |
Legend HAVA - Help America Vote Act of 2002; effective 1/1/2024 DMV - North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles SSA - Social Security Administration
|
HAVA Complaint #8 Reconvened Hearing May 7th at 2:00pm - WebEx |
Partial Transcripts State Board of Elections Meeting held on April 16, 2026
SEGMENT 2 01:18:55 Deputy General Counsel Adam Steele I will say these rules are on our webpage. The ones in the notebooks in front of you are the ones that are up there – they’ve got the draft kind of watermark on there. So, if there's any questions that you have - happy to answer them.
01:19:18 Board Member Jeff Carmon Mr. Steele, I have to tell you, I don't envy the position you sat in. You've done an awesome job of putting a tuxedo on a pig. But I stand by what I said earlier, this is it's still a pig.
At our last meeting, we spent a little time speaking about a small number and how that small number didn't warrant some decisions that were made. And, to my understanding, based off of all the public comments and the emails, 41 non-citizens out of 4.8 million citizens who voted is what the data I have.
And, Mr. Hayes has overseen a Municipal Primary and the General Municipal and also a full Primary, and at no time have I seen… as a matter of fact, we said that those were very successful elections and had little issues - little to no issues... and I don't think any of those issues that I recall were of non-citizens attempting to vote. In my 6 - now 7 - years, I think there's only been one person found guilty of a non-citizen attempting to vote.
The most tragic part of all of this for me is: we are saying that non-citizens are an issue but there's this new legislation that I think is coming out that the mandatory registration will apply to green card holders, refugees, asylum seekers and undocumented men to serve in our military.
Now, if the federal government is saying that an undocumented man can go and die for our country, they're saying he can go and die for a country he cannot vote in.
And that's very personal to me.
So I am unable to support any parts of this rule as nicely as you dressed it up. And again, I commend you for it. I know you spent a significant amount of time. I appreciate it. I respect it. But this is not needed.
SEGMENT 2 01:44:07 Board Member Four Eggers I appreciate the conversation, the practicality of if we have the documents, we can cancel a hearing, but this is setting up due process and that's what we're here for – for the rules. A lot of what I have heard is more of the philosophical question of: should we verify whether voters are citizens?
Because our obligation is to enforce the rules and one of the rules is that you have to be a citizen of the United States, among other criteria, in order to be an eligible voter. And what I hear from my colleagues on the other side of the fence is that we should trust in human nature and that people will just simply do the right thing. And that's a nice thought but it is not something that is a reality, that we can go through. The same as: how old are you? Are you a felon or where do you live?
If there's a process to verify each of these items, that's in the rules. And this is just adding additional rules as to what the process will be. And overall, this is a good process that staff has put together.
It guarantees due process for the voter and an opportunity to be heard and to have those issues considered. Our obligation is to the accuracy of our records and that is first and foremost something that we have to do as far as following those procedures and making sure that we are following what the rules say we're supposed to do. Because an ineligible voter is the same problem as someone who has denied the vote, those are two sides of the same coin.
Either way, it is either canceled out a lawful vote or it has denied a lawful vote if someone is otherwise eligible. So finding that balance and finding where that needs to be is our obligation and these proposed rules provide that due process for us to do that. I would note that many other states have utilized this database and have done so with success and it's just amazing to me that we have a situation where the answer is: simply don't verify citizenship when we have tools available to verify citizenship.
There's no such thing as a perfect process, but giving folks the opportunity to be heard and to consider that - that is what we do and that is part of our process and this is simply fulfilling our obligation to make sure that there are adequate and appropriate rules in place.
And I'm in support of these rules and would note we have already had a divided vote on whether to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the federal government. This board by majority voted to do so, has already decided to move in that direction. And this is the outgrowth of: Do we need rules and do we need processes? And the answer, of course is yes, and these proposed rules adequately convey that.
The issue of the policy decision is not one that's before us. The question here is do these rules provide due process and I thank staff for that because I believe they do.
Board Member Jeff Carmon I absolutely would like to say something to my esteemed colleague next to me. I think we're tone deaf. We are now saying: you have to carry your papers. Board Member Four Eggers I disagree with that.
Board Member Jeff Carmon I know you would, but we're saying you have to show your papers to prove you're a citizen of this country so that you can vote. And I'll go back to again - President Trump just signed recently The National Defense Authorization Act, which is going to automatically register every male for selective services: green card holders, refugees, asylum seekers and undocumented men.
And we are now saying that we're going to make a small percentage - We're going to make a significant percentage of our population have to jump through hoops because of a very insignificant number that we've dealt with in the past. And I absolutely love your quote that there's no such thing as a perfect election. And I think we should keep that in mind as we develop these rules. They shouldn't, you know, due process to one is a poll tax to another.
Board Member Four Eggers Mr. Carmon, I would of course respectfully disagree with your characterization of that. This is simply a verification of one of the requirements of a voter and what we're looking at here are what are our procedures going to be? And this gives the voter the opportunity to be heard if they are even flagged as being on this list.
Otherwise, the other part of this is the vast majority of people who are on our voter list will most likely be verified as being US Citizens and a lot of what this board does, you and I have probably seen it is: we major in the minors and we fight as to what the very nuanced small amounts at the edge may be or may not be. But that is part of our responsibility is to make sure we get it as accurate and as correct as possible.
Board Member Jeff Carmon Absolutely. And again, it's all about perspective because what’s minor to you may very well be major to people such as my great uncle and my great aunts who don't have a birth certificate. Because during that point in time when they were born, we, we lived in a different country.
They're more modern circumstances where people don't have access to their birth certificate or the ability to purchase their birth certificate - needless to say, the process of getting a passport. So I think due process is not supposed to overburden a citizen.
Board Member Four Eggers What you are suggesting though is that we simply not verify citizenship.Board Member Jeff Carmon No, I'm not saying that we don't verify it. We already do that when you do your voter registration, you affirm that you're a citizen, and then we have procedures in place to prosecute people who lie on that form.
Board Member Four Eggers I believe you've already noted that that process currently is ineffective.
Board Member Jeff Carmon No, I had noted that the process has only yielded a very small number compared to the amount of citizens that have voted in our state.
Board Member Angela Hawkins Checking the box is not proof.
Board Member Siobhan Millen May I jump in since I think my position was unwittingly mischaracterized by my esteemed friend?
I'm not saying trust only. I actually would be in favor of a citizenship comparison and a database. I just don't think SAVE is it. It's been shown that it is not a very reliable tool, so that's why I don't think we should rely on it. Board Member Four Eggers I will say as we've discussed before, there is no other database and there is no other alternative for what you're suggesting.
Board Member Siobhan Millen I don't know. It's an unknown unknown, as Rumsfeld would say, I don't. I don't know that that's the case.
Board Member Jeff Carmon So if I understand what you're saying, because there's nothing else we're going to accept this so...
Board Member Four Eggers I disagree with the characterization of this as being a flawed or otherwise problematic item, because it is a database maintained by the federal government which has the responsibility of immigration and naturalization services for this country.
And even if it does have its issues, we are that is the purpose of why we are here today is to build a process and to adopt rules and nothing more and nothing less. But to say how are we going to apply these rules such that the voter is protected and given the opportunity to be heard, if there is an error on one of these, but I believe are a very small number of cases.
Board Member Jeff Carmon OK. I appreciate all the faith you put in the federal government and how they handle immigration and things of that nature. But what we've seen in the past few months is they fail tremendously and...
Board Chair Frances DeLuca Glad to see you're back to your normal distrust of federal government.
Board Member Jeff Carmon It's not that I distrust the federal government, I'm just stating facts. We have seen people killed based off of federal actions. We've seen citizens detained based off of federal action, so it's not that I don't trust the federal government. As an attorney, I'm just letting you know the facts that are presented before us.
Board Member Angela Hawkins Mr. Chairman, didn't we - or this board prior to me joining - we addressed the SAVE database and we voted that that this body we're going to do it. So I think we're, I think we're moving off of the rule back on to SAVE and so maybe we can circle back to the rule.
Board Member Siobhan Millen It's just that SAVE is the trigger for the rule, so it's kind of an unavoidable direction.
Board Chair Frances DeLuca We did.
Board Member Siobhan Millen We did. Yes, we did.
Board Member Jeff Carmon We didn't. We had the discussion, we had the vote, and as my colleagues stated, WE didn't vote for it, but it was a split vote. And what I've learned from a few of my prior colleagues is when I have the opportunity to say I didn't vote for that, it's imperative that I state I did not vote for that and I continue to have disdain for the SAVE database as well as these rules.
Board Member Siobhan Millen Amen. |
SEGMENT 3 01:54:21 Board Member Four Eggers Mr. Chairman, if you'll entertain a motion. Board Chair Frances DeLuca I’d love to entertain a motion. Board Member Four EggersYes, Sir. I would move the state board adopt the following permanent rules as proposed by staff: 08 NCAC 23.0101, .0102, .0103 and .0104.
Board Member Angela Hawkins 2nd.
Board Chair Frances DeLuca We have a motion to 2nd to adopt staff’s recommendation of the rules. Discussion. Debate. I hate to say that, but I did.
I think this is a good thing and we need to move forward. In that case, if there's no discussion.
Board Member Jeff Carmon Before you,.. So are you are going to support this?
Board Chair Frances DeLuca Of course, yes. I hesitate to ask but why wouldn't I?
Board Member Jeff Carmon Why wouldn't you? Because you stated previously and you fought for this country. I appreciate your service and now they're going to be undocumented men that's going to do the same thing that you did, but they will not be able to...
Board Chair Frances DeLuca That's right. There always have been undocumented men doing what I did.
Board Member Jeff Carmon Oh, so they have brought value to our country. I leave it there.
Board Chair Frances DeLuca No one's ever said they didn't bring value.
Board Member Jeff Carmon No.
Board Chair Frances DeLuca But we have rules. Citizens who were born here have rules, and they don't necessarily get to do everything if they don't abide by all the rules. You commit a felony, you lose your right to vote.
Board Member Jeff Carmon You absolutely do. But if you go to war, which - we're currently at - we're currently doing - as an undocumented person, you could very well lose your life. Board Chair Frances DeLuca Yeah. Board Member Jeff Carmon OK. You follow all the rules. You were registered by this new National Defense Authorization Act and that's OK. But we're putting all this pressure on people who are citizens, who are doing all those things to provide [proof of] their citizenship.
Board Chair Frances DeLuca Let's get. Let's get back to the issue at hand.
Board Member Jeff Carmon And we can get back to it. I just wanted to remind you because you said you fought for this country and you've just stated that you have led men who were undocumented, who fought for this country and now…
Board Chair Frances DeLuca Well, I did not say I led people who were undocumented, I cannot state that as a fact.
Board Member Jeff Carmon But you know they served this country honorably. Board Chair Frances DeLuca I know they’re there - somewhere they were.
Board Member Jeff Carmon Ok. I have nothing else. I'm ready to vote.
Board Chair Frances DeLuca OK, Mr. Carmon.
Board Member Jeff Carmon Thank you, Mr. Chair, on behalf of all of the people who submitted comments who have repeatedly come to this meeting to state that they are totally against this rule, I vote no.
Board Member Four Eggers Mr. Chairman, we are a country of laws and not of men, and as such we need to adopt rules for the process of this and I vote aye.
Board Member Siobhan Millen I vote no.
Board Member Angela Hawkins Aye.
Board Chair Frances DeLuca And Chair De Luca votes aye. Rule is passed. |
|
Comments