HB 259 – the NCGA’s 2021 apporoach to non-citizen voters

[Note: This article covers details of the NC Legislature’s recent bill (HB 259, which can be tracked by clicking here) to mitigate the problem of non-citizen voters in a way that has been proven effective in Florida for more than a decade.]

Oct 27, 2021 Charlotte — Yesterday’s Charlotte Observer, sibling of Raleigh’s News and Observer, published a cliche-ridden attack against a recent bill (linked here) which mandates inter-agency cooperation as a means of helping election officials root out a vast number of non-citizen voters.

Rather than ruminate over Voter Integrity Project’s eight-year battle to get this bill passed, we offer some “fact checking” of the “news” paper’s misleading editorial and deem it “mostly false.”

And before I forget, way back when the truth mattered to NCSBE employees, their own Patrick Gannon made an  embarrassing admission:

We do not have a regular voter list maintenance process to identify and remove non-U.S. citizens from the voter rolls…”

Below are some of the Charlotte Observers whoppers, followed by the truth about the common-sense measure and some helpful answers for when the next opinion journalist steps up to spin this bill.

The editorial’s second paragraph surprisingly starts with portions of truth, but then veers into agitation propaganda that bears closer reading.

If someone called for jury duty says they’re not a citizen, their name would be forwarded to the State Board of Elections. [TRUE] That information would be matched against the state’s voting rolls, [ALSO TRUE] and any non-citizens would be removed. [PARTIALLY FALSE] The names of those people would then be public record. [PURE AGITPROP]”

While it is true that this bill makes it possible for non-citizen voters to be removed, it also orders a lengthy adjudication process that gives the chance for any suspected non-citizen voters to show proof of their subsequent naturalization.

Next we address the part about their names being in the public record implies some sort of legislative revenge for any non-citizen voters and this is grossly misleading with the added twist of race-baiting.

The “public” aspect of this procedure involves the well-earned mistrust that our election officials have garnered over the past decade. People whose critical thinking skills are not totally destroyed by drugs and the “news” all realize that enacting a secretive process is as good as no process at all.

Meet Karen Bell’s mentor and master, former NCSBE Executive Director, Gary Bartlett

The disturbing caviler attitude shown by NC SBE Director Karen “Bartlett” Bell in her fight with NC’s Freedom Caucus is just one proof that outside oversight is clearly NOT welcomed by her rogue agency.


Besides that inconvenient fact, we remind readers that public embarrassment is the only vehicle that makes them improve their processes. We start with (then) Director Gary Bartlett’s propaganda efforts against Voter Integrity Project after we found almost 30,000 dead voters in NC.

Bartlett’s proven propaganda skills were again summoned from the deep.

His knee-jerk response was to mislead the public about some of the “Inactive” (but dead) voters on the rolls.

He then he claimed our work was full of errors.As if it were a coordinated response, a local TV reporter then “found” one of our mismatched voters. Her name was Carolyn Perry. Did I mention that she happened to be black?

That was when he deployed Veronica “Bartlett” Degraffenreid to Rachel Maddow’s program to virtue signal against our research and to dox us. As soon as her story ended, her minions flooded my cell phone with nasty messages flooded our website with nasty emails that shut down the site.

After Bartlett retired, we heard rumors that a few Catholic Priests exorcised the premises. Only then were we ever allowed to analyze his “proof.”

That was when we saw how wrong he was. In the end, John Pizzo and others agreed that we were somewhere above our original 97% accuracy estimate.

I’ll save the details for an upcoming book, but it turned out that Bartlett’s research methods were the problem and not ours!

Then, after Kim Strach filled Bartlett’s sulfur-fuming shoes, her programmers quietly fixed their process for detecting dead voters and now North Carolina has a pretty good track record for getting deceased voters off the rolls. You’re welcome!

Another SBE success involves their removal of felon voters from the rolls.

While VIP takes no position on whether convicted child molesters and other felons should be allowed to vote, the posting of people’s criminal records on-line helps keep election officials honest and that’s a good thing.

I’d call it a golden rule that government workers employees always perform the duties they cannot hide. Otherwise, their days in government are numbered.

Besides . . . public oversight in their management of our election rolls is required by federal law,

States… shall make available for public inspection and . . . all records concerning the implementation of programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible voters…”

Source, 52 USC §20507(i)(1)

Two quick points about that “news” paper’s sad agitprop.

First, for more than a decade, Florida’s sunshine laws have already allowed the public disclosure of people who duck jury duty over their non-citizen status and still vote. While TV journalists occasionally take a cheap shot at such voters, nobody else bothers.

We’d like to see some proof that roving bands of KKK types hunt down those “ferners” to harass them.

Oops. Wrong party. The KKK was the secret army of the Jim Crow Democrats . . . so never mind.

We conclude with some helpful suggested to the cliched objections you will soon be hearing either in the “news” or in conversations with people who think they look smart when they parrot media talking points.

Go get ’em!


Q: Would this law expose my private medical information?

A: No. Per §9-6.1(b) clearly explains how the medical privacy rights of individuals will not be infringed upon by this bill.

Q: Would this law expose my date of birth?

A: No. Per §9-6.2(b), any of your personally identifying information that’s already protected by state and federal law will remain protected.

Q: Under this law will the Clerk of Courts be removing persons from the voter rolls?

A: No. This law amends §9-6.2 to require Clerks of Court to share certain jury-disqualification information with the State Board of Elections and §163-82.14(c1) enacts strict procedures that prevent election officials from accidentally revoking the voting rights of any naturalized citizens.

Q: Will this law get non-US citizens in trouble even when they are accidentally registered to vote but don’t actually vote?

A: No. Per §163-82.14(b), only “the prospective juror [who] voted prior to becoming a United State citizen” will be reported to their local District Attorney, in accordance with §163-278.

Q: Will this law cause people to be targeted for harassment if their immigration status is made public?

A: Florida has had a similar transparency law in force for more than a decade and there are no records of such imagined harassment in their state.

Q: Why should the public have access to any of this jury-disqualification information?

A: The records obtained per §163-82.14(c1) are public, subject to certain personally identifying information, in order to allow public oversight of the voter-list maintenance procedures conducted by election officials in accordance with state and required under federal law (Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (“NVRA”), 52 U.S.C. § 20507).

Think of the money the taxpayers won’t have to waste on defense attorneys if they just make this information public up-front!