{
  "id": 9251878,
  "name": "IN RE: THE DECISION OF THE STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS DATED NOVEMBER 19, 1999 and ROBERT J. BARKER, SR., Petitioner/Plaintiff v. NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS and WAKE COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS, Respondents/Defendants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Barker v. North Carolina State Board of Elections",
  "decision_date": "2002-11-05",
  "docket_number": "No. COA01-1424",
  "first_page": "804",
  "last_page": "807",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "153 N.C. App. 804"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "434 S.E.2d 176",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1993,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "177-8",
          "parenthetical": "spe-cine statute controls over general statute where both statutes deal with the same subject matter"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "334 N.C. 595",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2531936
      ],
      "year": 1993,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "598",
          "parenthetical": "spe-cine statute controls over general statute where both statutes deal with the same subject matter"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/334/0595-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "292 S.E.2d 159",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1982,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "161"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "57 N.C. App. 650",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8525570
      ],
      "year": 1982,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "653"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/57/0650-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "515 S.E.2d 675",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1999,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "685",
          "parenthetical": "not within Act if \"clear statutory exemption or exception\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "350 N.C. 449",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        132176
      ],
      "year": 1999,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "462",
          "parenthetical": "not within Act if \"clear statutory exemption or exception\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/350/0449-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 346,
    "char_count": 6093,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.74,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.3031884561511697e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7876075014412037
    },
    "sha256": "dad703f3b4015af4b6e9c0f470412b3a07c15b1c8113831f7700aaa8e8955fee",
    "simhash": "1:ef3d010e904eadf2",
    "word_count": 976
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:17:05.865609+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges WYNN and BIGGS concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "IN RE: THE DECISION OF THE STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS DATED NOVEMBER 19, 1999 and ROBERT J. BARKER, SR., Petitioner/Plaintiff v. NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS and WAKE COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS, Respondents/Defendants"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "GREENE, Judge.\nRobert J. Barker, Sr. (Plaintiff) appeals from an order filed 23 July 2001 granting North Carolina State Board of Elections (the State Board) motion to dismiss Plaintiffs \u201cPetition for Relief.\u201d\nAfter a 16 July 2001 hearing on defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss, the trial court made findings of fact. These findings show Plaintiff was a candidate for mayor of Fuquay-Varina, North Carolina, in the 2 November 1999 election (the election). On 5 November 1999, the Wake County Board of Elections (the County Board) canvassed the votes cast in the election. The results showed Plaintiff had lost the election by sixteen votes. The State Board refused Plaintiffs request for a recount and he filed this action in the superior court requesting a stay of the certification of the election to allow for an investigation of allegations of voting irregularities. The trial court denied Plaintiffs request and remanded the case to the State Board for further proceedings. On 10 December 1999, Plaintiff appealed to this Court and petitioned for a writ of supersedeas. After denial of Plaintiffs petition to this Court on 21 December 1999, Plaintiff withdrew his appeal and the State Board ordered the election certified.\nOn 21 January 2000, on remand from the trial court, the State Board declined to take any further action on Plaintiffs requests for a recount or on his allegations of voting irregularities. Subsequently, Plaintiff verbally requested personal access to the ballots issued, voted, or returned during the election. The State Board also refused to take any action on this request. On 28 January 2000, Plaintiff filed the \u201cPetition for Relief\u2019 in the trial court to compel access to ballot information. At a 16 July 2001 hearing, Plaintiff presented the sole issue as \u201cwhether sealed ballots constitute [d] public records\u201d under chapter 132 of the General Statutes (the Public Records Act), \u201cand if so, whether they were subject to public access and inspection as public records.\u201d\nThe trial court concluded under the election laws of Chapter 163 of the General Statutes, including section 163-171 governing the sealing of ballots after an election, that \u201cballots used in municipal elections are not public records as that term is used in [the Public Records Act].\u201d\nThe dispositive issue is whether N.C. Gen. Stat. section 163-171 provides the sole method for obtaining access to ballots cast in an election.\nPlaintiff argues ballots cast in an election are subject to inspection pursuant to the Public Records Act (the Act). There is no dispute between the parties, and we agree, that ballots cast in an election are \u201cpublic records\u201d within the meaning of the Act. See N.C.G.S. \u00a7 132-l(a) (2001). As a general proposition \u201cpublic records\u201d are subject to inspection \u201cat reasonable times and under reasonable supervision,\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 132-6(a) (2001), and without regard to purpose or motive, N.C.G.S. \u00a7 132-6(b) (2001). If, however, the law \u201cotherwise specifically\u201d provides, public records are not subject to disclosure under the Act. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 132-1(b) (2001); Virmani v. Presbyterian Health Servs. Corp., 350 N.C. 449, 462, 515 S.E.2d 675, 685 (1999) (not within Act if \u201cclear statutory exemption or exception\u201d).\nIn this case, the General Assembly enacted, as a part of the election laws, section 163-171, which specifically provides a method for obtaining access to ballots that have been cast in an election. This section unequivocally provides that ballot boxes shall be opened only \u201cupon the written order of the county board of elections or upon a proper order of court.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 163-171 (1999) (repealed effective January 1, 2002). Thus, section 163-171 constitutes a \u201cclear statutory exemption or exception\u201d to the Act and provides the exclusive method for accessing ballots. See Piedmont Publ\u2019g Co. v. City of Winston-Salem, 334 N.C. 595, 598, 434 S.E.2d 176, 177-8 (1993) (spe-ci\u00f1e statute controls over general statute where both statutes deal with the same subject matter).\nAccordingly, because the Act does not provide a method for accessing the ballots, the trial court correctly allowed the State Board\u2019s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs petition.\nAffirmed.\nJudges WYNN and BIGGS concur.\n. Since Plaintiff Joes not assign error to these findings of fact.they are deemed to be supported by competent evidence and are conclusive on appeal. Anderson Chevrolet/Olds v. Higgins, 57 N.C. App. 650, 653, 292 S.E.2d 159, 161 (1982).\n. As the statute at issue in this case was repealed, we do not address the applicability of the Act with respect to ballots cast after the enactment of the current election laws.\n. Plaintiff does not assert any argument in his appeal that the State Board or the trial court erred in denying him access to the ballots under section 163-171. Accordingly, we do not address this issue.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "GREENE, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Atkins Hunt & Fearon, P.G., by Donald G. Hunt, Jr. and Belinda Keller Sukeena, for plaintiff appellant.",
      "Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney General Susan K. Nichols, for defendant-appellee North Carolina State Board of Elections, and Deputy County Attorney Shelley T. Eason for defendant-appellee Wake County Board of Elections."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "IN RE: THE DECISION OF THE STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS DATED NOVEMBER 19, 1999 and ROBERT J. BARKER, SR., Petitioner/Plaintiff v. NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS and WAKE COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS, Respondents/Defendants\nNo. COA01-1424\n(Filed 5 November 2002)\nElections\u2014 access to ballots cast in election \u2014 Public Records Act\nThe trial court did not err by granting respondent State Board\u2019s motion to dismiss plaintiff candidate\u2019s petition for relief seeking access to ballots cast in an election pursuant to the Public Records Act because the Act does not provide a method for accessing the ballots when N.C.G.S. \u00a7 163-171 constitutes a clear statutory exemption or exception to the Act and provides the exclusive method for accessing ballots.\nAppeal by plaintiff from order filed 23 July 2001 by Judge J.B. Allen, Jr. in Wake County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 17 September 2002.\nAtkins Hunt & Fearon, P.G., by Donald G. Hunt, Jr. and Belinda Keller Sukeena, for plaintiff appellant.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney General Susan K. Nichols, for defendant-appellee North Carolina State Board of Elections, and Deputy County Attorney Shelley T. Eason for defendant-appellee Wake County Board of Elections."
  },
  "file_name": "0804-01",
  "first_page_order": 834,
  "last_page_order": 837
}