NEW HANOVER COUNTY — A former New Hanover County elections director will continue her court challenge regarding her termination earlier this summer.
On Oct. 15, Superior Court Judge Craig Croom allowed DeNay Harris’ petition for judicial review to proceed following dismissal requests from the county and state board of elections.
Croom dismissed two other claims with prejudice: that Harris’ rights under the state constitution were violated and a request for a declaratory judgment — a court ruling declaring whether the boards violated her constitutional rights.
READ MORE: ‘Between the offices’: Relationship between NHC election director and county manager on shaky ground
Port City Daily reached out to Harris’ lawyer, Jocelyn Burton of Burton Employment Law, for a response but did not hear back by press.
Harris worked for the New Hanover County Board of Elections for a month-and-a-half before she was put on paid administrative leave. She took over from previous executive director, Rae Hunter-Havens, who suddenly resigned in fall 2025. The New Hanover County Board of Elections voted to hire Harris on Jan. 13, though Harris didn’t start until Feb. 3.
Within weeks of starting, Harris raised concerns about county employees’ roles and access to elections facilities, as first reported by Port City Daily and in the midst of early voting for the 2026 primary election. On March 3, Primary Election Day, she sent a memorandum insisting that access to ballots, voting equipment and state election systems be limited to authorized individuals.
Between Hunter-Havens’ resignation and Harris’ hiring, the county and local board of elections board members allowed Assistant County Manager Lisa Wurtzbacher and Executive Aide to the County Manager Crystal Whittaker to help facilitate the fall and primary elections. Wurtzbacher and Whittaker also helped Harris transition into her role.
Burton lists in the lawsuit the state statutes Harris was trying to follow, including N.C. 163- 165.1(e) (confidentiality of voted ballots), 163-166.3 (restricted access to voting enclosures), and 163-22 (state board authority). Thus, the she alleges retaliation — not legitimate concerns about her client’s performance — motivated Harris’ removal.
Burton points to county elections board Chair Jamie Getty’s request that County Manager Chris Coudriet disregard Harris’ email and maintain the “status quo.” She also cites Coudriet’s statement that he would decide what county resources to extend to Harris.
While New Hanover County provides budgetary funding for the local board of elections, it doesn’t oversee the board or director position — the North Carolina Board of Elections does.
“The SBE confirmed in writing that the Director Ms. Harris had ‘complete control’ over who could access the State’s election information system and at what permission levels,” Burton writes in the filings.
Upon Harris asking to pull back access, she claimed to be retaliated against by the county, as well as having her email tampered with. Harris filed an HR complaint, stating New Hanover County was monitoring and deleting her emails. The county conducted a third-party audit on Harris’ computer and Microsoft account, with preliminary results turning up no evidence of tampering.
Harris alleged 191 emails were deleted in one day. Filings also cite a forensic examination reporting approximately 54,000 missing log files, though acknowledge the examination found no inbound remote access or confirmed intrusion.
On March 22, Port City Daily and WHQR dropped an in-depth piece about the director’s controversial, short tenure and how her relationship with the county and its elections board members were unraveling. She was put on paid leave — at $115,000 annually — on March 19. The board met in closed session March 23 and according to the court filings, the removal petition was submitted to the state board on March 24.
Though the local board never publicly admitted to requesting Harris’ termination, sources close to the matter confirmed it with Port City Daily. Harris’ then-attorney Gary Shipman, of Shipman Wright & Moore, LLP, told media she filed her response in opposition to the local board’s petition and added the county’s move was “clearly pretextual, retaliatory, and unsupported by reliable evidence.”
The petitions for Harris’ removal have never been made public, though State Board of Elections’ Executive Director Sam Hayes signed off on it on May 20. It became final on June 9.
Though a judge granted the state board of elections’ motions be sealed by the courts, Burton’s responses in the lawsuit give some insight into its assertions. Chief among them: The filings had procedural defects and insufficient claims. The state says Harris’ petition did not specifically identify errors in the termination decision, though Burton recounted the detailed account of events, combined with stated legal objections, sufficiently explains the challenges.
Also broached: the timing of which the lawsuit arrived at the North Carolina State Board of Elections and New Hanover County Board of Elections. Both boards state they arrived too late and both invoked a statutory requirement for the petition to be served by personal service or certified mail within 10 days of filing. Burton disputes whether that requirement applies.
She filed on July 10 and a receipt of certified mail for the New Hanover County Board of Elections is stamped with the post office date of July 18.
On July 20, Burton also contacted the New Hanover County Sheriff’s Office to serve the summons and petition to the county elections office.
The elections board said it was formally served with the lawsuit on July 27.
Burton responded that, even if the 10-day deadline applied, courts can allow late service when there is a good reason for delay. She disputes the State Board of Elections’ service objection and asks for permission to correct any defect.
She also counters New Hanover County Board of Elections’ notion that it was the improper party to hold accountable in Harris’ termination. Burton responds the county board of elections claims “the state board made the final decision” to let go of Harris. But the attorney points to the county elections board as the “originator” to Harris’ removal.
In her Oct. 7 filing, Burton also asks the judge to consider whether the county board violated Harris’ constitutional rights through alleged retaliation; that claim was subsequently dismissed.
As of press, there was not a scheduled court date or review on the Harris case.
At Port City Daily, we aim to keep locals informed on top-of-mind news facing the tri-county region. To support our work and help us reach more people in 2026, please, consider helping one of two ways: Subscribe here or make a one-time contribution here.