Listen to the article
North Carolina Early Voting Sites Spark Controversy Over University Access
Democratic Rep. Valerie Foushee’s recent claims about denied early voting access at North Carolina universities have come under scrutiny following a fact-check that reveals a more complex reality behind the allegations.
Foushee stated Monday that “the GOP weaponized the North Carolina Board of Elections and denied requests for early voting at universities that have hosted it before,” suggesting a systematic effort to suppress student voting. However, an investigation by The Center Square found that only one of the three universities mentioned actually had a history of hosting early voting during midterm primaries.
On January 13, the State Board of Elections adopted plans for 12 counties that failed to reach unanimous decisions on early voting sites, including Guilford County, home to North Carolina A&T State University and UNC Greensboro, and Jackson County, where Western Carolina University is located. None of these three campuses will have early in-person voting sites for the upcoming primary.
The controversy prompted the College Democrats to file a lawsuit seeking to establish voting sites on each campus. U.S. District Court Judge William Osteen ruled Sunday that the current plans comply with legal requirements, effectively rejecting the challenge.
According to The Center Square’s government accountability fact check, neither North Carolina A&T nor UNC Greensboro has hosted early in-person voting sites for midterm election primaries in recent history. Records indicate that Guilford County has not approved such sites at these institutions for at least the past six election cycles.
Western Carolina University, however, presents a different story. The Hinds University Center at Western Carolina has consistently served as an early voting location for both primary and general elections dating back to at least 2016, making it the only campus among the three with an established voting history that won’t continue this year.
Notably, none of these campuses fall within Rep. Foushee’s congressional district, raising questions about her direct involvement in the matter.
The broader context reveals that the State Board of Elections has actually approved a 6% increase in early voting sites statewide for this midterm primary election compared to previous cycles, growing from 301 to 319 locations. Orange County, which Foushee represents, is among the 17 counties that saw an increase, gaining additional voting sites. Meanwhile, Durham and Granville counties, which also include her constituents, maintained the same number of sites as four years ago.
Jackson County, home to Western Carolina University, is one of only seven counties experiencing a reduction in early voting locations.
The discrepancy between Foushee’s claims and the historical record highlights the often politicized nature of voting access discussions. While the reduction of an established voting site at Western Carolina University represents a genuine change from past practices, the characterization of widespread denial of university voting sites appears to overstate the situation.
This controversy unfolds against the backdrop of heightened attention to voting access nationwide, particularly for younger voters on college campuses who historically face more barriers to participation. North Carolina, as a crucial swing state in federal elections, often sees intense scrutiny of its voting procedures from both major political parties.
As early voting approaches, election officials maintain that the approved plans will provide adequate access to voters throughout the state, while critics continue to argue for expanded options, particularly in areas with high concentrations of young voters.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
10 Comments
The lawsuit filed by the College Democrats to establish voting sites on campuses suggests there are still unresolved issues around student access to early voting. This merits further investigation.
Allegations of voter suppression are serious and should be thoroughly examined. However, the nuanced findings from this fact-check highlight the importance of examining the full context before drawing conclusions.
Agreed. Responsible journalism requires digging deeper into the details to separate fact from fiction, rather than amplifying unverified claims.
Interesting that the claim about denied requests for early voting at universities has been disputed by a fact-check. Verifying the accuracy of such allegations is crucial for informed public discourse.
Absolutely. Fact-checking is essential to counter misinformation and ensure voters have access to the facts about election processes.
This is a complex issue with valid concerns on both sides. It’s important to have objective, fact-based reporting to understand the full context rather than jumping to conclusions.
This fact-check serves as a reminder that political rhetoric doesn’t always align with the full reality on the ground. Careful analysis of the facts is necessary to understand complex electoral issues.
Absolutely. Uncovering the nuances behind these kinds of allegations is crucial for voters to make informed decisions.
While the initial claims about denied early voting access were concerning, the deeper investigation reveals a more complex situation. It’s important to reserve judgment until all the facts are known.
It’s encouraging to see the State Board of Elections taking action to address the lack of consensus on early voting sites. Maintaining fair and accessible elections is critical for democracy.