ShareThis Page
North Carolina elections head says ballots handled illegally | TribLIVE.com
Politics Election

North Carolina elections head says ballots handled illegally

Associated Press
769201_web1_769201-84536128fd3447fbae506338323344bb
769201_web1_769201-ee1ec2e8c0f94a599f1157b7e3972d9f
Lisa Britt answers a question by executive director of the Board of Elections Kim Strach during the public evidentiary hearing on the 9th Congressional District investigation Monday, Feb. 18, 2019, at the North Carolina State Bar in Raleigh.
769201_web1_769201-c2d8748931dd4ba0aa52011be2e1145e
769201_web1_769201-059ff0f4848b4869869ad45fcfef33c1
769201_web1_769201-ce197e2099e148e694dffac8a1c3110c
769201_web1_769201-78e22ebc7c034bd8b90ed9b5a54c14a0

RALEIGH — A Republican operative conducted an illegal and well-funded ballot-harvesting operation, North Carolina’s elections director said Monday, but the first session of a days-long hearing produced scant evidence that the GOP congressional candidate he worked for knew about it or even benefited.

The director’s testimony came at the opening of a state elections board hearing into whether mail-in ballots were tampered with in the race for the state’s 9th congressional district seat that saw Republican Mark Harris narrowly defeat Democrat Dan McCready.

The race wasn’t certified, leaving the country’s only congressional election without a declared winner. The elections board is expected to either declare a winner or order a new election after the hearing.

“The evidence that we will provide today will show that a coordinated, unlawful and substantially resourced absentee ballot scheme operated in the 2018 general election” in rural Bladen and Robeson counties, which are part of the congressional district, state elections director Kim Strach said.

Harris held a slim lead over McCready in unofficial results following November’s election, but the state elections board refused to certify the contest after allegations of potential ballot manipulation surfaced. There wasn’t evidence presented Monday that the election irregularities were so widespread that it would overturn Harris’ 905 vote lead. The hearing will continue Tuesday and could continue beyond then.

The investigation targeted a political operative working for Harris’ campaign named Leslie McCrae Dowless Jr.

One witness, Kimberly Sue Robinson, said she turned over her signed, blank ballot to Dowless’ workers in an unsealed envelope. She said she’d done the same thing in previous elections, trusting Dowless would make good choices. The registered Republican’s vote was counted in November’s election.

Dowless was hired to produce votes for Harris and Bladen County Sheriff Jim McVickers, but his methods last year included paying people to visit potential voters who had received absentee ballots and getting them to hand over those ballots, whether completed or not, Dowless worker Lisa Britt testified.

It’s illegal in North Carolina for anyone other than a guardian or close family member to handle a voter’s ballot.

Dowless was called to testify late Monday, but his attorney said he wouldn’t do it without legal protection against prosecution for events he described. The board refused.

Britt testified she collected about three dozen sometimes unfinished ballots and handed them to Dowless, who kept them at his home and office for days or longer before they were turned in, said Britt, whose mother was formerly married to Dowless. While the congressional and sheriff’s races were almost always marked by voters who turned in unsealed ballots, Britt said she would fill in down-ballot local races — favoring Republicans — to prevent local elections board workers from suspecting Dowless’ activities.

“Most people aren’t concerned with the school board or some of the other little people on there,” Britt said.

While Dowless and Harris’ main campaign consultant were in constant contact, she didn’t have any indication Harris knew about the operation, Britt said.

“I think Mr. Harris was completely clueless as to what was going on,” Britt said.

Britt’s mother said she overheard a phone conversation in which Harris and Dowless before November’s election discussed the Republican’s strong showing. Sandra Dowless said Harris asked McCrae Dowless, the ex-husband who she lived with for six months last year, how he knew the Republican was running strongly.

“I know the people and I know how they vote,” Sandra Dowless recounted her ex-husband as saying.

Strach said McCrae Dowless paid local people he recruited $125 for every 50 mail-in ballots they collected in Bladen and Robeson counties and turned in to him. That means they could have been altered before being counted.

The operation’s scope allowed Dowless to collect nearly $84,000 in consulting fees over five months leading into last year’s general election, said Strach, adding that in addition to reviewing financial and phone records investigators questioned 142 voters in the south-central North Carolina counties.

Harris received 679 mail-in ballots in Bladen and Robeson counties, compared to 652 for McCready, Strach said. But McCready’s lawyers contend nearly 1,200 other mail-in ballots were sent to voters and never returned — enough to erase Harris’ Election Day lead.

Strach was expected to touch on the unreturned ballots later in the hearing.

“It’s not just about those that have been returned. It’s potentially about those that haven’t been returned,” she said.

Dowless and Harris attended Monday’s hearing. McCready did not.

Four of the five members on the elections board — composed of three Democrats and two Republicans — would need to agree a new election is necessary.

If that doesn’t happen, McCready’s lawyers said state officials should send their findings to the Democrat-dominated U.S. House and let it decide whether Harris should be seated — arguing that the U.S. Constitution gives the House authority over the elections and qualifications of its members.

Categories: News | Politics Election
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.