Article 4A. Political Activities by State Board and County Board of Elections Members and Employees. § 163-38.  Applicability of Article. This Article applies to members and employees of the State Board of Elections and of each county board of elections. With regard to prohibitions in this Article concerning candidates, referenda, and committees, the prohibitions do not apply if the candidate or referendum will not be on the ballot in an area within the jurisdiction of the board, or if the political committee or referendum committee is not involved with an election or referendum that will be on the ballot in an area within the jurisdiction of the board. (2000-114, s. 1; 2007-391, s. 14(a); 2011-31, s. 17; 2017-6, s. 3; 2018-146, s. 3.1(a), (b).)   § 163-39.  Limitation on political activities. No individual subject to this Article shall: (1) Make written or oral statements intended for general distribution or dissemination to the public at large supporting or opposing the nomination or election of one or more clearly identified candidates for public office. (2) Make written or oral statements intended for general distribution or dissemination to the public at large supporting or opposing the passage of one or more clearly identified referendum proposals. (3) Solicit contributions for a candidate, political committee, or referendum committee. Individual expressions of opinion, support, or opposition not intended for general public distribution shall not be deemed a violation of this Article. Nothing in this Article shall be deemed to prohibit participation in a political party convention as a delegate. Nothing in this Article shall be deemed to prohibit a board member or board employee from making a contribution to a candidate, political committee, or referendum committee. Nothing in this Article shall be deemed to prohibit a board member or board employee from advising other government entities as to technical matters related to election administration or revision of electoral district boundaries. (2000-114, s. 1; 2007-391, s. 14(a); 2017-6, s. 3; 2018-146, s. 3.1(a), (b).)   § 163-40.  Violation may be ground for removal. A violation of this Article may be a ground to remove a State Board of Elections member under G.S. 143B-16 or a county board of elections member under G.S. 163-22(c). A violation of this Article may be a ground for dismissal of an employee of the State Board of Elections or of a county board of elections. No criminal penalty shall be imposed for a violation of this Article. (2000-114, s. 1; 2007-391, s. 14(a); 2011-31, s. 18; 2017-6, s. 3; 2018-146, s. 3.1(a), (b).)   § 163-40.1.  Definitions. The provisions of Article 22A of this Chapter apply to the definition and proof of terms used in this Article. (2000-114, s. 1; 2017-6, s. 3; 2018-146, s. 3.1(a), (b).)

GS §163-22(c) Removal of a county board member:    (c) The State Board shall advise the county boards of elections as to the proper methods of conducting primaries and elections. The State Board shall require all reports from the county boards of elections and election officers as provided by law, or as are deemed necessary by the State Board, and shall compel observance of the requirements of the election laws by county boards of elections and other election officers. In performing these duties, the State Board shall have the right to hear and act on complaints arising by petition or otherwise, on the failure or neglect of a county board of elections to comply with any part of the election laws imposing duties upon a county board of elections. The State Board shall have power to remove from office any member of a county board of elections for incompetency, neglect or failure to perform duties, fraud, or for any other satisfactory cause. Before exercising this power, the State Board shall notify the county board of elections member affected and give that member an opportunity to be heard.

Letters To The Editor Info Letters To The Editor Contact Information Directions At the top of the page, write your full legal name, full address, and your phone number. Write your letter. Include a subject for your letter (and in the subject line in an e-mail) The editor will call you to verify that the letter is from you. Wait a few days. If you do not hear from the editor, call them and ask WHY they will not publish your letter. (Many times they cave!) Asheville Citizen-Times: https://www.citizen-times.com/story/opinion/2017/12/12/how-submit-op-ed-letter-editor/946173001/ Twitter handle: @asheville Submit a letter to the editor to Asheville Citizen Times. See form: http://static.citizen-times.com/submit-letter-editor/ . Must be 200 words or less. This is an online form. We welcome your input. You may write to us by fax at 828-281-2592; or by regular mail at: Letters to the Editor Asheville Citizen-Times P.O. Box 2090 Asheville, NC 28802 Further questions may be directed to 828-236-8973 More info here http://orig.citizen-times.com/service/faq/letters_policy.shtml ---------------------------- The Asheville Tribune or The Hendersonville Tribune Twitter handle: @TribunePapers By email: david@thetribunepapers.com; By Mail Tribune Papers PO Box 5615, Asheville, NC 28813 828-277-1760 ------------------------------- BlueRidgeNow.Com Hendersonville Times News Twitter handle: @BlueRidgeNow Send it to "To the Editor," with the writer's name, home address (not published) and telephone number (not published) can be sent by e-mail, U.S. mail or fax. Send e-mail to lifestyle@blueridgenow.com . 828 694 7874. Send regular mail to: To The Editor, P.O. Box 490, Hendersonville, N.C. 28793. Send faxes to (828) 692-2319. Press Release : tnletters@blueridgenow.com Event Calendar : lifestyle@blueridgenow.com Letters may be dropped off at the Times-News offices at 106 Henderson Crossing Plaza, Hendersonville. All letters are subject to editing and must include the writer's name, mailing address, home number and signature. In order to present a wide range of views, letters are limited to 200 words. Writers are limited to 15 letters a year and two per month. The Times-News does not publish anonymous letters, poetry or open letters. If you would like to write a longer guest column (750-word limit), contact the editorial page editor at the e-mail address. ------------------------------- The Daily Planet Please submit your Letters to the Editor by noon Thursday of each week, via e-mail, at letters@ashevilledailyplanet.com , or fax to 252-6567, or mail c/o The Daily Planet, P.O. Box 8490, Asheville, N.C. 28814-8490. Submissions will be accepted and printed at the discretion of the editor, space permitting. To place an ad online or in print, call 252-6565. ------------------------------- The Hendersonville Lightning Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/HendersonvilleLightning/ They post Opinions on-line. There is no policy for length, etc. Submit your LTE to Bill Moss, Editor at Billmoss@hendersonvillelightning.com . Make sure you have your name, address, phone number in the email. See here for additional contacts. http://www.hendersonvillelightning.com/contact-us.html

https://www.onlycitizensvotecoalition.com/Testimony

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/republicans-challenge-north-carolina-decision-that-lets-students-show-university-s-mobile-id/ar-AA1qtIrg?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=8283a9bc272f4055b8b1263cfa4170fc&ei=11

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=live+coverage+of+911+today+from+memorial&qpvt=live+coverage+of+911+today+from+memorial&FORM=VDRE

Instructions for Toolkits:   https://irp.cdn-website.com/fbb6c7eb/files/uploaded/Instructions-_2024_Only_Citizens_Vote_Toolkit_Citizens.pdf Toolkits:   https://www.onlycitizensvotecoalition.com/citizens-toolkit

https://irp.cdn-website.com/fbb6c7eb/files/uploaded/Rep_Chip_Roy_Booklet.pdf

Carolina Journal https://www.carolinajournal.com/ncsbe-faces-second-lawsuit-from-republicans-over-alleged-hava-violations/ In less than one week, the Republican National Committee (RNC) and the North Carolina GOP (NCGOP) are once again suing the North Carolina State Board of Elections (NCSBE). The latest lawsuit states the election board failed to require identification to prove citizenship. The RNC and the NCGOP said that by violating the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), and not checking the identification of approximately 225,000 voters, the agency is opening the door for non-citizens to vote.  According to the suit: The NCSBE formerly used a voter registration form that failed to require HAVA-required identification information, such as a driver’s license number or the last four digits of a Social Security Number.  Prior to December 2023, NCSBE used voter registration forms that failed to collect this required information. Specifically, NCSBE collected, processed, and accepted voter registration applications that lacked both the driver’s license and social security numbers because NCSBE’s form did not tell the voter the information was required. The lawsuit goes on to say that only if a registrant affirmatively confirms they do not have either form of identification, the state must “assign the applicant a number which will serve to identify the applicant for voter registration purposes . . . [which] shall be the unique identifying number assigned under the list.” Id. at § 21083(a)(5)(A)(ii). It further states that the NCSBE’s noncompliance with HAVA was first raised when a concerned citizen, Carol Snow, filed a complaint with NCSBE on Oct. 6, 2023. Snow alleged that NCSBE’s voter registration form, which was still in use at the time of her filing, failed to indicate that “the applicant’s qualifying identification of the applicant’s driver’s license number or last four digits of the applicant’s social security number, is required if one or the other have been issued to the applicant.” At its meeting on Nov. 28, 2023 , NCSBE considered Snow’s complaint. At the meeting, and in its Dec. 6, 2023, order, NCSBE acknowledged that its voter registration forms did not sufficiently notify applicants that their driver’s license number or the last four digits of their social security number were required in order for their registration to be processed and accepted. NCSBE further acknowledged using the voter registration form, which failed to comply with HAVA for approximately 225,000 voters throughout North Carolina. It follows that by failing to comply with HAVA, Defendants admittedly violated their duties under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-82.11(c). Ultimately, Defendants granted Ms. Snow’s request to change the voter registration form moving forward.   But, the board denied Snow’s request to identify and contact voters whose registrations were improperly accepted due to their forms lacking the necessary identification information. Snow filed a new complaint earlier this year charging that the verification process of registrants’ driver’s licenses and Social Security numbers didn’t go far enough. The board voted 4-1 against the complaint. The RNC and NCGOP said the board “has refused to take remedial action and did not reach out to these voters to collect the required information. The agency has offered a half-hearted promise to North Carolinians that those ineligible to register, but were allowed to anyways, will naturally filter themselves out.” “The NCSBE has once again failed in its mandate to keep non-citizens off the voter rolls, fueling distrust and jeopardizing our elections,” said RNC Chairman Michael Whatley. “We are committed to the basic principle – and commonsense law – that only Americans decide American elections. Deliberately failing to follow the law right before our country’s most important election is inexcusable.” NCGOP Chairman Jason Simmons added, “This State Board continually has problems ensuring voter rolls only have verified citizens. This lawsuit will remedy their ongoing refusal to collect the required information from those who want to take part in North Carolina elections. Accountability and fidelity to following the rule of law is long overdue for the most partisan Elections Board in state history.” NCSBE spokesman Patrick Gannon told Carolina Journal in an emailed statement that the lawsuit asks for an impossible solution, adding that despite being aware of their alleged claims months ago, the plaintiffs have waited until two weeks before the start of voting to seek a court-ordered program to remove thousands of existing registered voters. “Federal law itself prevents such removal programs if they take place after the 90th day before a federal election, which was August 7,” he told CJ. “So, the lawsuit is asking for a rapid-fire voter removal program that violates federal law.”  Gannon also said that the lawsuit also misunderstands the data and vastly overstates any alleged problems with voter registrations. “If a voter does not have a driver’s license number or the last four digits of their Social Security number populated in the voter registration database, that does not necessarily mean that they were allowed to register improperly,” he said. “Federal law allows voters who lack one of these numbers to nonetheless be registered. State law also allows a registrant whose information fails to exactly match with the DMV or Social Security databases to be verified by showing another type of ID before voting. Such database match problems are well  documented , especially with the Social Security Administration. Gannon points out a common reason is a variation between married and maiden names in different government databases. These voters are also included in the plaintiffs’ alleged figures. And even if voters failed to provide either their driver’s license or the last four digits of their Social Security numbers when they registered, just like voters whose information did not match between databases, those voters would have been required to show another type of ID before voting. He also stated that many voters registered before the federal law changed in 2005 to require the submission of a driver’s license number and the last four digits of a Social Security number.   “And in any event, all these voters will be asked to show photo ID again when they vote this year,” Gannon added. The RNC and NCGOP sued the NCSBE last week , claiming that state election officials are ignoring a 2023 state law requiring removal from the voting rolls of noncitizens identified through jury questionnaires. Theresa Opeka is the Executive Branch reporter for the Carolina Journal.

To Henderson County Commissioners Mike Edney: jmedney@hendersoncountync.gov David Hill davidhill@hendersoncountync.gov Daniel Andreotta dandreotta@hendersoncountync.gov William Lapsley wlapsley@hendersoncountync.gov Rebecca McCall Rebecca McCall rmccall@hendersoncountync.gov Clerk of the Court dlauffer@hendersoncountync.gov   From: Jane Bilello 218 Vincent Place Hendersonville,NC 28739 209-986-3835 RE:  Poll Observers informed they will be denied parking space at O’Reilly’s during early voting one-stop Dear Commissioners and Clerk of the Court: At 2PM on Tuesday, August 27, 2024, Summer Heatherly,  Henderson County Board of Elections Director, held a meeting with Poll Observers at the Henderson Count Board of Elections Office at 75 E. Central Street, Hendersonville, NC 28792. There were approximately 40 in attendance.  It was at that time that we learned that Ms. Heatherly was denying Poll Observers parking access at O’Reilly’s.  Only voters could park at the location. Instead, we were directed to contact businesses in the area and ask for permission to park .  Not only is this a gross disrespect and inconsiderstion for poll observers whose only job it is to assure that the elections are conducted according to law and with full transparency, but it is against Federal Law 18 U.S. Code § 245 - Federally protected activities to interfere with a poll watcher’s  job. (See below)  This is total disregard for the Federal law and disrespect for the work we do.  It is a deliberate move to discourage poll observers from performing their duties by making it very difficult to get to the one stop and obviously making it as hard and dangerous as possible to get there.  (Keep in mind that the average age of our poll observers is probably 70. Some have underlyning conditions and mobility issues.) During the 2024 Primary, Poll Observers parked at O’Reilly’s and were driven by golf cart to the early voting site.  (Not the best of circumstances, but it worked.)  At the most, there were two Republican and two Democrat observers taking up four spaces at each four-hour time slot. (Is this not harassment!)  It was not a problem or issue.  This denial of parking space now presents physical barriers to arriving on time by either walking down the four lane Spartanburg Highway from some business that ‘allows’ us to park, or wasting time calling for a golf cart to pick us up.  This adds to the four-hour time slot we have to spend performing our job.  It is obvious that the BOE doesn’t want us there.  What are they hiding? The BOE and the NCSBOE are seriously violating (Federal Law 18 U.S. Code § 245 - Federally protected activities).  The NCSBE are being sued for legitimate reasons.  (See below.)  They are going to make it as hard as possible for us to assure that our elections are legitimate. It is obvious that Ms. Heatherly is marching to the orders of the NC State Board of Elections that is currently being sued for failing to follow HAVA laws.  The Board does not want Poll Observers at polling locations and they will make it as hard as possible for us to even get there.   It is nothing more than harassment.  When I asked Ms. Heatherly for the statute that says Poll Observers will have no parking, she sited § 163-129.  Structure at voting place; marking off limits of voting place. https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_163/GS_163-129.html . Yes. Voters need space to park but so do Poll Observers who are protected by Federal law to perform their duties without harassment.  The NCSBE takes great liberties in flaunting the spirit of the law.  Nothing new. The jigs up.  Again, this was not an issue during the 2024 primary early voting at the Henderson County BOE. Suddenly, under scrutiny by the public for NCSBE dereliction of duty, the NCSBOE directs the local BOEs to choose to harass the very persons who can add credibility and confidence to our elections.  This is a non-partisan issue.  Every legitimate vote should count and only our Poll Observers can testify to that legitimacy.  So why is the BOE making it difficult for us to perform that function?   Might I remind you, neither Summer Heatherly nor the Board of Elections own the property at 75 E Central.  The county does.  That means that you pay the bills and have oversight. It’s absurd to think that the BOE under your watch entered into an agreement for voters to use O’Reilly’s and excluded 4 parking spots for Poll Observers.  Really!  There is currently little to no confidence in our elections being fair, transparent by making it easy to vote and hard to cheat.  This underhanded maneuver to undermine Poll Observers’ duties adds to the distrust in our elections and the officials who run them.  Will you not help to right this ship?  You are our elected officials who perform oversight on the BOE.  It is my hope that this situation is resolved quickly and without further delay so Poll Observers can get back to assuring that laws are followed and it’s easy to vote and hard to cheat.  This is nothing but harassment on the part of the BOE.   Poll Observers perform a vital job.  Poll Observers should not be worried about how to get to our polling location or wasting time in a golf cart down a four-lane dangerous highway because of the obvious disrespect and inconsideration the BOE has for us. Thank you.  I look forward to your response.  Jane Bilello ----------------------------------------------------------------------- References below.   18 U.S. Code § 245 - Federally protected activitie (b) Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, by force or threat of force willfully injures, intimidates or interferes with, or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with —   (1)  any person because he is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from—              (A)  voting or qualifying to vote, qualifying or campaigning as a candidate for elective office, or qualifying or acting as a poll watcher , or any legally authorized election official, in any primary, special, or general election;           …            (E)   participating in or enjoying the benefits of any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance… shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both ;  and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both;  and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. NCs Undemocratic Election Board https://www.ashevilleteaparty.org/post/north-carolina-s-undemocratic-election-board This is the jury DQ lawsuit:   https://assets.nationbuilder.com/ncgop/mailings/14105/attachments/original/4855-7516-1306_v.1_Complaint_%28clean%29.docx.pdf?1724359795 This is the HAVA compliance lawsuit:  https://prod-static.gop.com/media/documents/NCGOP_v._NCSBE_-_Verified_Complaint_1724443002.pdf RNC Suing NCSBE :  https://www.ashevilleteaparty.org/post/kudos-rnc-suing-north-carolina-state-board-of-elections GOP States Sue Over Programs to Give Immigrant Spouses Legal Status https://www.ashevilleteaparty.org/post/gop-led-states-sue-over-program-to-give-immigrant-spouses-of-citizens-legal-status -- Jane Bilello 209 986 3845 jane.bilello@gmail.com (As of August 28th 2024, the above was referred to the county attorney. We shall see. We can only hope that the county will rectify this situation.)

GOP-led states sue over program to give immigrant spouses of citizens legal status https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/gop-led-states-sue-over-program-to-give-immigrant-spouses-of-citizens-legal-status/ar-AA1pkD9C?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=20d6aaccb5fe410cb2415b7a37ec760b&ei=8 Sixteen Republican-led states are suing to end a federal program that could open a path to citizenship to nearly half a million immigrants without legal status who are married to U.S. citizens . The coalition has filed suit to halt the program launched by President Biden in June, saying in court filings that the administration bypassed Congress to create a pathway to citizenship for “blatant political purposes.” This action incentivizes illegal immigration and will irreparably harm the Plaintiff states,” the suit filed Friday in federal court in Tyler, Texas, says. Under the policy, which started taking applications Monday, many spouses without legal status can apply for something called “parole in place,” offering permission to stay in the U.S., apply for a green card and eventually get on a path to citizenship. But the program has been particularly contentious in an election year where immigration is one of the biggest issues, with many Republicans attacking the policy and contending it is essentially a form of amnesty for people who broke the law. Texas Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton said in a statement Friday that the plan "violates the Constitution and actively worsens the illegal immigration disaster that is hurting Texas and our country.” White House spokesperson Angelo Fernández Hernández fired back against Republicans “playing politics” and characterized the lawsuit as another form of family separation. “This lawsuit is seeking to force U.S. citizens and their families, people who have lived in the United States for more than ten years, to continue to live in the shadows,” Fernández said in a statement. The suit filed against the Department of Homeland Security, DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and other Biden administration officials accuses the agency of attempting to parole spouses “en masse,” which the states contend is an abuse of power. The states also filed a motion asking for the program to be put on hold while the lawsuit proceeds. In a post on X, Florida Atty. Gen. Ashley Moody said her state is challenging the policy because she believes the Biden administration “is illegally using ‘parole’ in a systematic way to advance their open-borders agenda.” The nonprofit America First Legal, which is headed by Stephen Miller, a former advisor to President Trump, is serving as co-counsel in the lawsuit. Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Mayra Alejandra said the agency will defend the Keeping Families Together program in court and continues to process and accept applications. “Keeping Families Together is grounded in well-established legal authority, and its purpose — enabling the families of U.S. Citizens to live without fear of separation — is consistent with fundamental American values,” Alejandra said. The bipartisan immigration and criminal justice organization FWD.us said the program is in compliance with the law and noted the timing of the lawsuit — as Vice President Kamala Harris accepted the Democratic nomination for president. “The only motivation behind this lawsuit is the cruelty of tearing families apart and the crass politics of hoping a judge might do the bidding of the anti-immigrant movement,” the organization said in a statement. Karen Tumlin, founder and director of the Justice Action Center, called the legal challenge “unsurprising yet extremely disappointing and cruel.” To be eligible for the program, immigrants must have lived continuously in the U.S. for at least 10 years, not pose a security threat or have a disqualifying criminal history, and have been married to a citizen by June 17 — the day before the program was announced. They must pay a $580 fee to apply and fill out a lengthy application, including an explanation of why they deserve humanitarian parole and a long list of supporting documents proving how long they have been in the country. If approved, applicants have three years to seek permanent residency. During that period, they can get work authorization. The administration estimates about 500,000 people could be eligible, plus about 50,000 of their children. Before this program, it was complicated for people who were in the U.S. illegally to get a green card after marrying an American citizen. They can be required to return to their home country — often for years — and they always face the risk they may not be allowed back in. The lawsuit contends that states will bear the burden of additional immigrants staying in the country. Texas, the suit says, spends tens of millions of dollars each year on a program that provides health insurance for children, including those in the country illegally. It says that the state also spends millions each year “for increased law enforcement as its citizens suffer increased crime, unemployment, environmental harm, and social disorder due to illegal immigration.” Because the program beneficiaries will be entitled to work authorization, those additional workers “will drive down the wages of Texas residents, directly harming the State and its citizens,” the lawsuit says. Evelyn Wiese, an immigration attorney at American Immigrant Justice, described the lawsuit as an “attack” on mixed status families who have spent years contributing to their communities in the United States. “Trying to rip apart these families and prevent them from accessing a lawful pathway to status in the U.S. is cruel and reflective of anti-immigrant extremism,” she said. Salomon and Gonzalez write for the Associated Press. AP writer Rebecca Santana contributed to this report. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times .