Why It Matters
A high-profile North Carolina primary race between state Senate Leader Phil Berger and Rockingham County Sheriff Sam Page will move into contested evidentiary hearings after machine recounts confirmed Page’s narrow 23-vote advantage. The outcome of this race carries significance for legislative control in North Carolina, with Berger’s position as Senate leader at stake in the Republican primary. Election officials in both Rockingham and Guilford counties have agreed to proceed with hearings on Berger’s protest allegations, setting the stage for what could become a prolonged legal challenge to determine the race’s final result.
What Happened
Initial machine recounts in Rockingham and Guilford counties upheld Page’s 23-vote lead over Berger following the primary election. Despite the recount results, Berger filed formal protests in both counties, alleging irregularities in ballot distribution and voter eligibility. Election officials determined sufficient probable cause existed to move the protests forward to evidentiary hearings rather than dismiss them as frivolous.
The Guilford County Board of Elections voted unanimously on Thursday to proceed with Berger’s protest, scheduling an April 6 hearing date. The Rockingham County Board of Elections agreed to hold evidentiary hearings on March 27 to examine Berger’s allegations. Additionally, the State Board of Elections is investigating the matter, according to Berger’s petition.
Berger’s protest in Guilford County centers on the allegation that eight early voters were provided incorrect ballots. In Rockingham County, Berger’s three separate protests involve five voters, with claims including one voter being wrongly denied the opportunity to vote after election officials failed to update her address in time. Berger also alleges an unaffiliated voter was incorrectly told she could only participate in the Democratic primary. A third protest involves claims that three voters were wrongly permitted to vote.
A procedural dispute has emerged regarding the disclosure of voters’ identities in the Guilford County protest. Paul Cox, the former long-time attorney for the State Board of Elections now representing Page, argued that Berger’s protest failed to identify the eight voters who claimed they received wrong ballots, limiting Page’s ability to mount an effective defense. Berger’s legal team expressed concern about publicly identifying the voters involved. Guilford County Elections Director Charlie Collicutt cautioned both parties that no agreement between them could override North Carolina public records law regarding potential disclosure obligations.
By The Numbers
Page’s lead stands at 23 votes following the machine recount. Berger’s protests involve allegations affecting eight voters in Guilford County and five voters across three separate protests in Rockingham County. The Guilford County Board of Elections voted unanimously to proceed with the hearing. Two county boards of elections have scheduled hearings, with Rockingham County setting a March 27 date and Guilford County scheduling April 6.
Zoom Out
Close primary elections occasionally trigger recounts and subsequent legal challenges across the United States. The margins that trigger automatic recounts vary by state, but many states, including North Carolina, have established procedures allowing candidates to request recounts when results are exceptionally tight. In recent election cycles, several high-profile races have proceeded to contested hearings after initial recounts maintained narrow margins, particularly in competitive legislative primaries where leadership positions or significant political power are at stake.
The involvement of a former state elections board attorney representing Page underscores the legal complexity anticipated in these hearings. Election protest proceedings require careful attention to procedural rules, evidence standards, and competing interests—including voter privacy, transparency, and due process rights.
What’s Next
Rockingham County elections officials will convene to hear evidence from both Berger and Page regarding the allegations in that county on March 27. Guilford County’s hearing is scheduled for April 6. Both county boards of elections will determine whether Berger’s allegations are substantiated and whether any changes to the vote totals are warranted based on the evidence presented.
The question of voter identity disclosure in the Guilford County proceedings remains unresolved, with elections officials indicating the parties cannot simply agree to keep identities confidential if public records law requires disclosure. Resolution of this procedural matter may occur during the April 6 hearing or beforehand through coordination with the State Board of Elections.
Depending on the outcomes in both counties, either party may appeal adverse decisions or pursue additional legal remedies. The State Board of Elections’ ongoing investigation may also produce findings relevant to the county-level proceedings. The resolution of these hearings will determine whether Page’s 23-vote lead withstands scrutiny or whether vote totals are adjusted.