Election integrity activist seeks NC courts’ clarity in Dupre case

An election integrity activist is asking North Carolina’s highest court to consider a legal issue tied to disqualified US Senate candidate Margot Dupre. The issue remains unresolved despite Dupre’s loss in this month’s Republican primary.

Michael Whatley won the March 3 primary with nearly 65% of the vote. Dupre finished last among seven GOP primary candidates, securing 14,887 votes (2.4%).

Election officials counted her votes despite ruling her ineligible as a candidate after a residency challenge.

Dupre has asked the North Carolina Supreme Court to review the elections board’s decision to reject her candidacy.

Jay DeLancy, founder of the Voter Integrity Project-NC, filed a request Thursday to submit a friend-of-the-court brief in the case. The brief highlights an issue that could arise in the future when a disqualified candidate’s votes end up affecting the outcome of a tighter contest.

The disqualified candidate’s votes could determine whether a leading candidate has secured more than 30% of the primary vote. State law sets that threshold to determine whether a candidate wins the primary.

“This case presents a narrow but important question of statutory interpretation arising from an unusual procedural posture: The State Board has determined that Petitioner is not eligible to seek the nomination, yet her name remains on the ballot and votes cast in her favor will be counted,” wrote DeLancy, who also serves on the Lee County elections board.

“North Carolina’s primary-election framework requires nominees to be determined using the substantial-plurality formula set forth in N.C.G.S. § 163-111(a)(1). That formula depends mathematically on the universe of votes counted ‘for all aspirants,’ a term the statute does not define,” DeLancy added.

“Where, as here, votes may be counted for a candidate deemed ineligible, the inclusion of those votes necessarily affects the denominator used to calculate the thirty-percent threshold,” he explained. “Clarification from this Court regarding the proper treatment of such votes would promote uniform and predictable election administration statewide.”

Dupre’s votes did not affect the outcome of her race. The situation would have been different if the leading candidate secured a vote total closer to the 30% threshold.

The case “highlights a potential ambiguity” in state law: “whether the General Assembly intended the term [aspirant] to encompass all individuals whose names appear on the ballot, or only those candidates who are legally qualified to seek the nomination. Clarification of that statutory term would assist election officials in applying the substantial-plurality formula in a consistent and administrable manner,” DeLancy argued.

The issue in Dupre’s case “is not limited to the unusual facts of this case,” DeLancy added. “Similar timing conflicts are likely to arise in future election cycles because the statutory timelines — governing candidate challenges, ballot preparation, and absentee voting — necessarily overlap. As a result, ballots may already be printed and distributed — because absentee voting must begin weeks before election day under N.C.G.S. § 163-227.10 — before eligibility disputes are fully resolved.”

Dupre filed a petition seeking the Supreme Court’s intervention in her residency dispute after the state Appeals Court ruled against her on Feb. 17.

Lawyers from the North Carolina Department of Justice, representing the elections board, responded on Feb. 26.

Based on a challenge to Dupre’s residency from voter Jerry Bryan Reinoehl, the state elections board held a hearing and issued a decision that Dupre “‘has not satisfied the requirements to seek office through a party primary’ and concluded that Petitioner is not eligible to be a candidate for the office of U.S. Senate in North Carolina’s Republican Party primary contest,” Justice Department lawyers explained.

“The injury Petitioner appears to be claiming is her alleged ‘exclusion from a congressional primary’ as a result of the State Board’s Decision,” the court filing continued.

“Petitioner is mistaken. She has not been excluded from participation in the Republican Primary because of the State Board’s Decision. Petitioner’s name is on and will remain on the ballot, and votes cast in her favor will be counted,” Justice Department lawyers explained. “Thus, a stay of the State Board’s Decision is not necessary to preserve the status quo as Petitioner contends — Petitioner remains a candidate on the Republican Party ballot for the March 3, 2026 primary election, notwithstanding the State Board’s Decision and Order that she is disqualified as a candidate in the party primary.”

“The reason that Petitioner’s name is on, and will remain on the Republican Party primary ballot, is because the challenge to Petitioner’s candidacy was not resolved before absentee voting began in North Carolina, and there is no law to the contrary,” the court filing continued. “Votes for Petitioner will, therefore, be counted and reported.”

Changing the ballot is “not practical when a candidate is disqualified or otherwise deemed ineligible after voting in the primary election has begun,” Justice Department lawyers added.

“It is not practical at this late stage in the March 3, 2026 primary election to have ballots for the Republican Party primary reprinted,” the court filing continued. “Thus, Petitioner will remain on the ballot. And, in the absence of law instructing otherwise, any votes cast for Petitioner will be counted and reported.”

Had Dupre secured the most votes, a state law — N.C.G.S. ß 163-114 — explains how a political party would fill a vacancy created when a nominee “becomes ineligible or disqualified before the date of the ensuing general election.”

“Election integrity activist seeks NC courts’ clarity in Dupre case” was originally published on www.carolinajournal.com.