BY MILES LAYTON

RALEIGH — Two prominent election integrity advocates are calling for sweeping reforms to North Carolina’s voting infrastructure, saying years of research have revealed serious vulnerabilities that, if left unchecked, could be exploited by those seeking to commit voter fraud.

Since the mainstream media won’t report this information, here goes — In a new investigative presentation released this week, Hal Weatherman, President of the Electoral Education Foundation (EEF), and Major Dave Goetze, the foundation’s Vice President for research, outlined seven specific weaknesses in the state’s election system, calling for immediate legislative and procedural changes.

“This video will present seven vulnerabilities in our North Carolina election system that, if left unchecked, could lead to exploitation by those who wish to commit voter fraud,” said Weatherman at the start of the 10-minute video, which draws on five election cycles and over 2.5 billion lines of election data collected by the EEF.

“We’re not making these claims lightly,” Goetze added. “Our findings are based on five years of monitoring and analysis. We have looked at more than 250 updates to the statewide voter file, and our concerns are rooted in data, not theory.”

1. Skipping and Backdating of Voter Identification Numbers

The first vulnerability, according to the EEF, involves the assignment of voter identification numbers known as NCID numbers. Weatherman explained that every registered voter in North Carolina receives an NCID, a unique alphanumeric code that tracks all voting activity.

“NCID numbers are supposed to be issued in sequential order, and we track them weekly,” said Weatherman. “But we’ve discovered that numbers are sometimes skipped, disappear from the public file, and later reappear—backdated—to make it appear that they were always there.”

The foundation worries this irregularity could be used to quietly insert “phantom voters” into the system to facilitate mail-in ballot fraud.

“If systematic mail-in ballot fraud were to occur, it would need an available pool of unassigned NCID numbers with malleable registration dates,” he warned.

2. Ballot Application Numbers Not Disclosed

The second concern centers on absentee ballots, including those submitted by mail and those cast in person during early voting. Each absentee ballot is assigned a unique ballot application number, which is supposed to be public information by law.

“But the State Board of Elections refuses to release those numbers,” said Goetze. “That means the public cannot verify if a voter receives multiple ballots or whether one was spoiled.”

The EEF called for full transparency: “The ballot application number for all applicable ballots needs to be public record at all times,” Weatherman added.

3. Delayed Data from Same-Day Registrations

North Carolina law allows voters to register and vote on the same day during early voting. However, state law requires that all data from same-day registrants be entered into the system within 48 hours.

“That deadline is not being followed,” said Goetze. “In 2020, nearly 18,000 same-day registrations were added after the deadline. In 2022, it was over 2,000. And just this past cycle in 2024, there were 8,640 late entries.”

These late additions often become publicly visible only weeks after the election, long after results have been certified.

“We believe that any SDR [same-day registration] not entered by close of business on election day should be considered invalid,” Weatherman said.

4. Lack of Oversight for Online Voting Portal

Goetze also raised concerns about the online voting portal used by military, overseas, and disabled voters. According to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), online access must be provided—but the current system lacks safeguards, EEF says.

“There’s no voting method code in the voter file that identifies ballots cast through the online portal,” Goetze said. “This makes it impossible to verify whether a voter was actually eligible for that method.”

Their research found that in 2024, around 2,000 overseas ballots were cast without a valid overseas address on file.

“If no overseas address is provided, the online option should not be afforded to that voter,” he added.

5. Vote Totals Switched Between Candidates

One of the most alarming allegations involves vote totals being flipped between candidates in state reporting systems.

“In the 2024 general election, we saw vote totals for candidates swapped with their opponents after counties submitted their final uploads,” Goetze said. “It happened in at least a dozen races.”

“This was not a systemic statewide issue,” Weatherman emphasized. “Which is actually more troubling—it suggests the possibility of selective, targeted manipulation.”

6. No Verification of County vs. State Results

The sixth vulnerability stems from the disconnect between county and state election data. According to the EEF, there is currently no legal requirement to verify that the vote totals published by the State Board of Elections accurately reflect what counties originally submitted.

“This is a basic check-and-balance that is missing,” said Weatherman. “After all 100 counties upload their election night totals, those numbers should be confirmed against what the state board publishes. It’s common sense.”

7. Post-Election Changes to Certified Data

The final concern raised by Weatherman and Goetze involves changes made to data files after elections are certified.

“In 2020, on the Saturday night after the election, we saw someone modify the absentee ballot data from 2016,” Goetze explained. “That’s four years prior. And in May 2017, someone altered provisional ballot data from 14 different elections—in just three and a half minutes.”

This kind of rapid-fire editing suggests the use of automated software to manipulate records, he said.

“We’re not alleging the motive here. We’re saying the vulnerability exists and is being exploited,” Weatherman said. “Once an election is certified, that data should be locked and archived like any other historical record.”

The EEF proposes that the state transfer certified election data to the North Carolina State Archives, where it would be stored as immutable historical documents. They also propose having two copies—one for public research and one held independently—to ensure data integrity.

A Call for Reform, Not Partisanship

Though the video focuses on vulnerabilities, Weatherman emphasized that EEF’s mission is not political.

“We are a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. This is not about parties. It’s about transparency, accountability, and trust in our elections,” he said. “We’re offering this video as a roadmap to the General Assembly and the State Board of Elections.”

Goetze echoed the call to action.

“We believe addressing these seven vulnerabilities will go a long way toward closing the loopholes that currently exist,” he said. “It’s time for North Carolina to take election security seriously.”

The video ends with a simple message to citizens: “Share this video with your elected officials—especially your members of the North Carolina General Assembly.”

With the 2026 midterms on the horizon and trust in elections still a contentious issue across the country, the Electoral Education Foundation’s findings are sure to spark debate in both legislative and public circles.

Whether or not lawmakers act on the recommendations, the message from Weatherman and Goetze is clear: secure elections are not guaranteed—they must be earned through vigilance, transparency, and reform.

Contact Info: Electoral Education Foundation at  www.electoraleducationfoundation.com  and phone is (919) 616-4601.