by Sarah Michels, Carolina Public Press February 17, 2025
To cast an absentee ballot by mail in North Carolina, voters must follow two simple steps. First, they need two witnesses to watch them sign the ballot envelope. Second, they need to attach a copy of an acceptable form of photo identification to their ballot. And if a recently completed pilot program is expanded to the entire state, there may soon be a third security measure: the use of a special machine to verify a voter’s signature.
North Carolina would be the only state to use all three security requirements, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
During the 2024 primary, 10 counties participated in a “signature verification” pilot program. Now the results are in — and they’re not all positive.
What the numbers show
It was an experiment that cost over $450,000, mostly to pay for verification equipment for 10 counties. County boards incurred an additional $8,000.
The time commitment varied from county to county. In Durham County, the most populous participant, the program took 80 staff hours. In smaller areas like Bertie and Cherokee counties, the job only took an hour or two.
And the results are mixed.
In Rowan County, for instance, the signature verification software reviewed 308 absentee ballots during the primary election. It spit out 24 as potential mismatched signatures.
After a second, manual review, elections staff felt confident that all of the signatures actually did match except for one.
According to Sharon Main,Rowan County’s elections director, there was a pattern among the ballots needing additional review: The average age of the voter casting them was 67.
“When you looked at them, and you looked at the handwriting and you compared it to what was on file, you could still see similarities, but it was just shakier or more sideways,” Main said.
The verification software also got confused when comparing the absentee ballots’ ink and digital signatures on file from places like the DMV. Handwriting outside of signature boxes and other slight alterations were enough for the machine to reject some valid signatures.
After an initial machine review, 239 ballots — or 10.6% — of 2,235 were rejected.
However, a manual review of these signatures found just six that failed both tests.
Democracy NC, a grassroots organization that deploys personnel across the state to watch electoral processes, attests that much of what their monitors flagged also appeared in the pilot program’s final report made to the General Assembly by State Board of Elections Executive Director Karen Brinson Bell.
“I think it’s a lot easier to say something and to pass a law than to actually think about the reality of how it would impact voters,” said Katelin Kaiser, the policy director for Democracy NC.
Good idea, poor execution?
The program suffered unexpected delays, according to Brinson Bell’sreport.
The State Board missed its first reporting deadline because it couldn’t find a vendor in time. Bell asked for at least six months to find a better vendor if the legislature decides to expand the program statewide.
After the scanners were finally delivered in June 2024, there were immediate issues. The machines had a hard time reading barcodes on absentee ballots. Some voters wrote outside small signature boxes, which complicated analysis. And reference signatures — handwriting compared to absentee-envelope signatures— had varying image qualities, depending on their age and origin.
Jay DeLancy, the executive director of a North Carolina organization called the Voter Integrity Project, was a supporter of signature verification six years ago. After research and speaking to software developers, he sent a PowerPoint presentation to lawmakers in 2018 recommending they spend federal funds on the effort.
But after reading the results of the pilot program, he’s changed his mind.
“I like the ideas behind it, but I think the application to elections, it’s just not going to work,” DeLancy said.
He also thinks absentee voting may fade away, which would negate the need for such a program. State Board of Elections turnout data shows that, with the exception of 2020, about 5% of North Carolina voters utilize absentee by-mail voting in most presidential elections.
With each verification system costing between $300,000 and $450,000, the math quickly adds up.
“I think there’s far better ways to spend the money,” DeLancy said.
No problems with these signature programs
Bertie County Elections Director LaToya Peele is grateful for the “head start” on what may become a permanent, statewide process. The pilot program went well in her county with only one ballot requiring a second review, she said.
Further south in Pamlico County, there were also no issues.
Halifax County Election Director Kristin Scott said staff encountered some of the same technical difficulties as other counties, but the process turned out fine. Still, she wouldn’t go straight to a statewide implementation right away.
“I think a lot of testing could be done with it just to make sure that what we’re doing is accurate,” Scott said.
Will legislature expand signature program?
Last year, the General Assembly passed new election deadlines in Senate Bill 382.
Now, county boards must begin counting absentee ballots on Election Night — and can’t stop until they’re done. Previously, additional meetings were allowed before the canvass — 10 days after the election. Now, all absentee and provisional ballots have to be counted by the Friday after the election instead of before the canvass.
Main is already worried about the new deadlineseven without signature verification as part of the equation.
“You add a signature verification pilot program on top of it? That’s going to be a really long day, and it’s already about a 15 to 16-hour day,” she said.
Maybe modifications can be made to the software, Main added, but she isn’t sure.
“If they do go with it, I’m going to do my best to meet that requirement,” Main said. “But I do believe that they need to realize how much extra time and power that’s going to take. I want them to be fair to us on that one.”
SUMMARY: Jim Jenkins, a North Carolina baseball trailblazer and Negro Leagues player, exemplified resilience and excellence both on and off the field. His sons recall his superior skills—hitting, running, and catching—and how he faced challenges due to his skin color. Beyond baseball, Jenkins was a community father, teaching youths fundamentals and helping those in need. He shared a friendship with legend Hank Aaron, often attending Braves games with his family. His legacy endures through his children, who honor not just his athletic achievements but his kindness and humanity, inspiring future generations to carry on his impact.
James “Jim” Jenkins had a profound impact on the game of baseball as a trailblazer known in the Carolinas.
SUMMARY: A scientist reflecting on the politicization of science warns that ideological influence undermines objectivity, breeds mistrust, and hampers public understanding. The FY2026 budget proposal cut NIH funding by about 40%, saving taxpayers $18 billion, but only 1.5% of the total federal budget, while increasing defense spending by 13%. These cuts severely impact states like North Carolina, where science drives $2.4 billion in tax revenue and thousands of jobs. The cuts target indirect costs vital for research infrastructure and diversity efforts, mistakenly seen as ideological rather than essential scientific practices. The author calls for unity to prioritize facts over politics and protect scientific progress for societal and economic health.
www.thecentersquare.com – By Alan Wooten | The Center Square – (The Center Square – ) 2025-06-15 02:01:00
North Carolina’s U.S. House members voted along party lines on two Republican-backed bills: the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (H.R. 1), which cuts \$1.6 trillion in government spending, and the “Rescissions Act of 2025” (H.R. 4), which eliminates \$9.4 billion from entities like USAID and public broadcasting. Republicans called it a purge of waste, citing spending on drag shows and foreign projects. Democrats criticized the cuts as harmful and symbolic, calling the effort fiscally irresponsible. H.R. 1 passed 215-214; H.R. 4 passed 214-212. No Democrats supported either. A few Republicans broke ranks and voted against their party on each bill.
(The Center Square) – North Carolinians in the U.S. House of Representatives were unwavering of party preference for two bills now awaiting finalization in the Senate.
Republicans who favored them say the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, known also as House Resolution 1, slashed $1.6 trillion in waste, fraud and abuse of government systems. The Rescissions Act of 2025, known also as House Resolution 4, did away with $9.4 billion – less than six-tenths of 1% of the other legislation – in spending by the State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the Corp. for Public Broadcasting (PBS, NPR), and other entities.
Democrats against them say the Department of Government Efficiency made “heartless budget cuts” and was an “attack on the resources that North Carolinians were promised and that Congress has already appropriated.”
Republicans from North Carolina in favor of both were Reps. Dr. Greg Murphy, Virginia Foxx, Addison McDowell, David Rouzer, Rev. Mark Harris, Richard Hudson, Pat Harrigan, Chuck Edwards, Brad Knott and Tim Moore.
Democrats against were Reps. Don Davis, Deborah Ross, Valerie Foushee and Alma Adams.
Foxx said the surface was barely skimmed with cuts of “$14 million in cash vouchers for migrants at our southern border; $24,000 for a national spelling bee in Bosnia; $1.5 million to mobilize elderly, lesbian, transgender, nonbinary and intersex people to be involved in the Costa Rica political process; $20,000 for a drag show in Ecuador; and $32,000 for an LGBTQ comic book in Peru.”
Adams said, “While Elon Musk claimed he would cut $1 trillion from the federal government, the recissions package amounts to less than 1% of that. Meanwhile, House Republicans voted just last month to balloon the national debt by $3 trillion in their One Big Ugly Bill. It’s fiscal malpractice, not fiscal responsibility.”
House Resolution 1 passed 215-214 and House Resolution 4 went forward 214-212. Republican Reps. Warren Davidson of Ohio and Thomas Massie of Kentucky were against the One Big Beautiful Bill and Republican Reps. Mark Amodei of Nevada, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Nicole Malliotakis of New York and Michael Turner of Ohio were against the Rescissions Act.
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Centrist
The article presents a straightforward report on the partisan positions and voting outcomes related to two specific bills, highlighting the contrasting views of Republicans and Democrats without using loaded or emotionally charged language. It neutrally conveys the Republicans’ framing of the bills as efforts to cut waste and reduce spending, alongside Democrats’ critique of those cuts as harmful and insufficient fiscal discipline. By providing direct quotes from representatives of both parties and clearly stating voting results, the content maintains factual reporting without promoting a particular ideological stance. The balanced presentation of arguments and absence of editorializing indicate a commitment to neutrality rather than an intentional partisan perspective.
