Election protest filed in Maggie alderman race

Vicki Hyatt, The Mountaineer, Waynesville, N.C.
·3 min read

Sep. 8—MAGGIE VALLEY — A candidate for the Maggie Valley mayor post who withdrew from the election Tuesday has filed a protest against alderman candidate Eve Barrett, who he contends is not a town resident.

In the paperwork filed with the Haywood County Board of Elections at 4:54 p.m. Friday, Jeff Lee filed documents questioning Barrett's eligibility to vote in Maggie Valley and requested she be removed from the ballot and face fraud charges as required.

The election protest includes exhibits to to illustrate that Barrett does not live at property within the town limits. One exhibit includes a July 25 Haywood County sheriff's report where an officer responded to a disturbance complaint at the Barrett's residence listed as 316 Grandview Heights, which is outside the town limits. Other exhibits include social media and website pages showing the residence listed on Barrett's candidate filing form — 160 Bridle Drive — is one used for and is extensively advertised as short-term rental in Maggie Valley.

"Mrs. Barrett has blatantly lied about her residency," Lee wrote in the complaint. "Her claim to 'live' at 160 Bridle Drive, yet on her own AirBnB listing, she says 'entire cabin 'hosted by Eve' and 'hosts live within 5 miles of the property and can assist guests if needed."

Individuals listed who may be called as witnesses include incumbent Maggie Valley Alderman Phillip Wight, Allen Alsbrook, who is also a candidate for Maggie Valley alderman and Pete Doyle.

Next steps

Haywood County Board of Elections Director Robert Inman said he has forwarded the complaint to the N.C. Board of Elections as required by law.

State law requires residency challenges to be filed within 10 days of the end of a filing period to be considered "timely," he said. During that period, it is up to the candidate to prove they live at the address listed on a filing form.

After the window, residency challenges can be made by any voter within the voting district, but the burden to prove nonresidency is up to the challenger, he added.

State election protest guidelines provided by the state board focus on the results of an election, and stipulate the county election board decides whether the protest demonstrates probable cause and complies with the filing requirements.

If that's the case, the protest advances to a hearing where witnesses are heard and evidence is examined, and a local board ruling that is appealable.

Under the guidelines, however, raise questions of whether the "untimely" filed complaint will advance before an election is held.

"The county board shall not consider election protests not timely filed, but shall refer all such untimely protests, along with copies of the protest and attachments, to the State Board office for consideration under G.S. 163-182.12. For the purposes of this Rule, timely means within time specified in G.S. 163-182.9," the guidelines state.

Both citations refer to post-election protests.

Later the directive states the election protest form "shall not be used to challenge the registration of an individual voter or to report an incident other than an irregularity affecting the outcome of an election."

The Haywood County elections board meets at 10 a.m. Tuesday, and Inman said the protest will be added to the agenda.

"If there is no objection from the state, we will establish a preliminary hearing schedule," Inman said.