In Re Ramseur

120 NC App 121 (1995); 139 NC App 442 (2000)

 

Background

The petitioners, opponents of a Mixed Beverage Referendum in Concord, who lost the disputed election by three votes, appealed the decision of the State Board of Elections certifying the results of the election in Concord, North Carolina, despite the recommendation of the Cabarrus County Board of Elections for a new election, in which voting irregularities including, ineligible votes, voting machine problems, eligible voters not being allowed to vote and voting count and recount problems were cited. On appeal to the Superior Court following the State Board of Elections certification of the referendum results, the court affirmed. the decision of the State Board of Elections_ On appeal to the Court of Appeals the court considered the petitioners allegations that their right to be heard on all of their allegations of election improprieties under procedural due process was not followed by the State Board of Elections as required under NC General Statute 150B-51(b)(3) of the Administrative Procedure Act and that the Superior Court should have overturned the State Board of Elections decision since the Board did not utilize the proper standard of de novo review for violation of a constitutional provision.

Relevancy for School Disciplinary Hearings

Establishes standard of review.

Held

The court concluded that the proper standard of review of a constitutional violation or an allegation of an error of law required de novo review (which was not undertaken by the State Board of Elections). The court held that procedural due process required that the petitioners were entitled to their right to be heard on the allegations of election irregularities on which the County Board had not made a decision. When the State Board of Elections considered whether a new referendum was in order, the Court of Appeals found that the State Board of Elections should have considered all alleged irregularities and their effect, should have taken additional evidence, conducted its own hearing, or remand the remaining issues to the County Board for further evidence and findings. In addition, the Court of Appeals indicated that the State Board of Elections, subject to the Administrative Procedure Act, should have submitted in writing in an order the specific reasons why it did not adopt a recommended decision of the County Board of Elections.

The court again considered the appropriate standard of review and determined that the de novo review was required as the appellants were arguing that the State Board of Election had committed errors of law.

The Court of Appeals held that the burden, as was the case in Ramseur I, was on the appellants to show that the irregularities were such that the referendum result would have been different had they not occurred.