Allegations of voting irregularities and ineligible voters in a closely contested mayoral race have been reviewed and dismissed by North Carolina courts, following an appeal from a candidate who lost by 19 votes. The dispute raises questions about election procedures, especially concerning voters without traditional housing, but ultimately resulted in affirmation of the original election outcome.
The complaint was filed by Charles Gregory Cummings, who appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals after the Wake County Superior Court affirmed an order from the North Carolina State Board of Elections denying his protest. The appeal was heard on January 13, 2026, with the underlying events stemming from the November 7, 2023 mayoral election for Pembroke, North Carolina. Allen G. Dial, who received 197 votes to Cummings’ 178, was declared the winner.
Cummings’ initial protest was filed late on November 22, 2023—after Robeson County announced an early office closure ahead of Thanksgiving—and alleged that at least sixteen ineligible voters participated in the election. He asserted that these votes could have changed the outcome and referenced prior instances (2013 and 2015) where elections involving Dial had been overturned due to irregularities. However, on November 28, 2023, the Robeson County Board of Elections dismissed Cummings’ protest for failure to comply with statutory requirements regarding timely filing and sufficient evidence.
Cummings appealed this dismissal to the State Board on December 28, 2023, amending his claim to allege seventeen ineligible voters and again referencing historical irregularities. The State Board’s Executive Director recommended denial based on untimeliness and lack of substantiating evidence. On January 8, 2024, the State Board unanimously denied Cummings’ appeal.
Subsequently, Cummings sought judicial review in superior court and requested a stay on certification of Dial’s victory. The trial court granted a temporary stay after noting previous history of voter irregularities in Pembroke elections but later allowed Dial to intervene as a party after he submitted affidavits from challenged voters attesting to their residency—many indicating homelessness but longstanding ties to Pembroke.
Evidentiary hearings were held by the County Board on June 25 and July 8, 2024. During these proceedings, it emerged that Attorney Gary Locklear—formerly under contract with Robeson County—had assisted Dial with preparing at least one affidavit while still serving as assistant county attorney. This prompted concerns about potential conflicts of interest; however, after consulting with the North Carolina State Bar (which advised no prohibitive conflict existed), proceedings continued despite Cummings’ objections.
At hearing, Dial acknowledged helping residents at his properties register and transporting them to vote but denied coercion or payment for votes. He also admitted that his daughters notarized most affidavits supporting voter eligibility—a point Cummings argued violated notary laws due to familial interest but which was not substantiated by specific legal citation during review.
The County Board ultimately found no substantial evidence that any challenged voter was actually ineligible or improperly compensated for their vote; nor did Cummings subpoena any contested voters for testimony. The board unanimously dismissed his protest on July 15, 2024.
Cummings appealed again to the State Board seeking consideration of additional evidence—including zoning information about Dial’s properties and further documentation—but this request was denied as such materials were either not subject to cross-examination or deemed cumulative or immaterial.
On September 23, 2024, after hearing arguments on September 5th, the State Board issued its final decision: “There is substantial evidence in the record to justify the [County] board’s decision to dismiss the protest.” It concluded that even if all challenged votes were excluded there would be insufficient grounds for a new election under state law because Cummings failed “to establish why such a weighty remedy must be employed for this particular election.” The board also found no reversible error related to minor procedural delays or alleged conflicts involving attorneys.
Cummings then returned to superior court arguing errors in scope of review and denial of additional evidence; however, Judge Matthew T. Houston entered an order affirming all prior decisions on March 18, 2025: “the State Board’s Final Decision should be… affirmed.” The trial court determined it had thoroughly reviewed all relevant material using appropriate standards including de novo review for legal issues and whole-record test for factual matters.
On further appeal before Judge Flood at the Court of Appeals (COA25-833), arguments raised by Cummings—including claims regarding timeliness violations by county officials; failure to address property-related voter eligibility; refusal to remand for a new election; arbitrary or capricious action; and exclusion of new evidence—were each systematically addressed and overruled based on precedent requiring proof that alleged irregularities would have changed results or tainted overall fairness beyond reasonable doubt.
Concurring separately with reservations about broader implications for elections involving non-traditional housing situations—but recognizing current statutes—the appellate panel affirmed: “the trial court did not err… nor did it abuse its discretion by failing to remand…”
Attorneys involved included R. Jonathan Charleston and Jose A. Coker (for petitioner-appellant); Special Deputy Attorneys General Terence Steed and Mary L. Lucasse (for respondent); J. Hart Miles, Elliot S. Abrams, Erin L. Wilson (for intervenor-respondent-appellee). Judge Matthew T. Houston presided at superior court level; Judges Flood and Gore concurred at appellate level under case number COA25-833.
Source: COA25833_Cummings_v_North_Carolina_State_Board_of_Elections_Opinion_North_Carolina_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
