Quick Hit: Mobile ID case settled

Also, a ruling overturned in an Orange County Board of Elections case

Two interesting election items dropped last week in North Carolina that may have flown under the radar for most folks.

Item One
The NC State Board of Elections settled the dispute involving the UNC-Chapel Hill Mobile One ID card. The settlement notice says no digital IDs are authorized as voter ID unless the identification specifically meets criteria in state statute or the General Assembly enacts a law allowing it.

From the dismissal notice:

The North Carolina State Board of Elections is not authorized to allow any form of electronic identification to satisfy North Carolina voter photo identification requirement found in N.C.G.S. 163-166.16 and 163-230.1 other than photo identification that satisfies all of the conditions found in 163-166.16(a), unless and until the North Carolina General Assembly duly enacts law that has the effect of permitting electronic identification to satisfy the voter photo identification requirement, where such electronic identification is not already permitted by law to satisfy the requirement. The North Carolina State Board of Elections shall not promulgate any rule or numbered memorandum that purports to allow any electronic identification in violation of the foregoing sentence.

Read the notice: Joint stipulation for dismissal with prejudice

Backstory

Ahead of the 2024 General Election, the formerly Democratic majority state board of elections had given approval to the use of UNC Chapel Hill’s digital Mobile One ID card.

A lawsuit requesting a temporary restraining order was filed by the Republican National Committee and NC Republican Party. The request was rejected in September by Wake County Superior Court Judge Keith Gregory, and the case ended up before the NC Court of Appeals, which overturned Gregory’s ruling and allowed the injunction.

Here’s the interesting part — an individual was able to spoof the Mobile One card, proving it was not a secure form of ID.

An affidavit filed in the case by 22-year-old Jeffrey Moore detailed his ability to alter the UNC Chapel Hill Mobile One card using two online apps. He was able to alter the digital ID in about an hour but said in the affidavit that he could likely do it faster now that he knew how.

Moore’s filing says he used two apps: “Superimpose+: Background Eraser” for editing the photo, and “Walletsmith – Wallet creator” to create a new credential with his picture and a fictitious name.
Moore added the modified UNC student electronic ID to his Apple Wallet app on his phone. - A.P. Dillon, North State Journal

Item Two
A NC Court of Appeals three-judge panel unanimously ruled that a county commission candidate in Orange County needed to obtain signatures from just 4% of voters in their district instead of countywide.

Judge Michael Stading authored the ruling with Judges Donna Stroud and Julie Flood concurring.

The Court of Appeals panel reversed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the Orange County Board of Elections and remanded for an order granting summary judgment to plaintiff Connor P. Fraley.

Fraley, an unaffiliated candidate for a District 2 seat on the Orange County Board of Commissioners, challenged the Board's requirement that his petition needed signatures from four percent of the entire county's registered voters, rather than four percent of the voters in District 2, in order to appear on the general election ballot.

The Court of Appeals found that the trial court erred in its interpretation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-122(a)(3), which governs unaffiliated candidates nominated by petition. The statute specifies that for a district office where only district voters nominate candidates, the petition requires signatures from four percent of the district’s registered voters, not the entire county.

Orange County’s election structure, under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-58(3)(c) and Orange County Code § 13-3(b)(2), designates District 2 voters as responsible for nominating candidates for that district’s seats, while the entire county elects all commissioners.

The court concluded that a plain reading of the statute supported Fraley’s position, as District 2 is a district office with nominations limited to its voters.

Read the ruling: Fraley v. Orange County Board of Elections