As to whether or not a supporter of incumbent Yadkin County Sheriff Michael Cain can challenge the candidacy of Jeff Royall based on his belief Royall will not meet the state's county-of-residence requirements to run for the open seat at the time of the Nov. 2, 2010, general election, there can be no doubt.

The challenge is easy enough, for the challenger.

But take a moment to stand in the shoes of the challenged.

First a little background. State statutes make it clear that a candidate for sheriff must meet three qualifications, and one of them, unbelievably, doesn't include not being a convicted felon.

First, the candidate must be over 21 years of age. Second, the person cannot be a practicing attorney or member of the General Assembly. And third, the person, if elected, must have lived within the county for which elected at least 12 months prior to the date of the election.

Essentially, as it stands now, if Royall receives the most votes for sheriff on Nov. 2, 2010, he must have lived in the county since Nov. 2, 2009, according to the the county elections board supervisor.

However, after a thorough inspection of the enormous amount of information subpoenaed by David W. Matthews, a 10-year exempt-status employee of the Yadkin Sheriff's Department, about the whereabouts and living arrangement of Royall during the past three years it might be easy to conclude the challenge is a less than subtle attempt to force the unaffiliated challenger to Cain's seat to withdraw from the race.

For space sake, we will only include a portion of what Matthews has forced Royall to produce and present in his defense during the challenge of candidacy hearing set for 9:30 a.m., Friday, July 23, in courtroom 1 in the county courthouse. This information is transcribed directly from the official challenge.

"a. Copies of Driver's Licenses and Department of Motor Vehicle records of Jeffrey Gray Royall confirming residence and revealing times of updates in regards to address changes.

"b. Copies of income tax returns, both Federal and State, from 2006 to the current time showing the principal address designated;

"c. Documentation of every address including the physical locations and post office boxes where Jeffrey Gray Royall has the ability to receive mail;

"d. Leases and deeds to all residential and vacant properties leased or owned by Jeffrey Gray Royall from 2006 to the current time;

"e. Any and all insurance policies in any way related to Jeffrey Gray Royall from 2006 to the current time, including but not limited to: (1) renter's insurance, (2) homeowner's insurance, (3) automotive insurance, (4) life insurance, (5) health and/or dental insurance, (7) errors and omissions insurance, (8) professional liability insurance, showing the principal address designated;

"f. Utility bills in the name of Jeffrey Gray Royall from 2006 to the current time, including but not limited to: (1) mobile and personal non-mobile telephone bills, (2) electric utility bills, (3) oil or gas bills, (4) cable or satellite bills, (5) internet bills;

"g. Utility bills for 11598 U.S. Highway 268, Elkin, North Carolina from 2006 to the current time, including but not limited to: (1) mobile and personal non-mobile telephone bills, (2) electric utility bills, (3) oil or gas bills, (4) cable or satellite bills, (5) internet bills;

"h. Utility bills for 3435 Arnold Road, Hamptonville, North Carolina from 2006 to the current time, including but not limited to: (1) mobile and personal non-mobile telephone bills, (2) electric utility bills, (3) oil or gas bills, (4) cable or satellite bills, (5) internet bills...." you get the picture.

And that is not even half of the documents subpoenaed by Matthews' challenge.

There are subpoenas for documents about banking statements, checking account statements, motor vehicle records, newspaper and magazine subscriptions, school records for any of Royall's children, including tuition records, emergency contact information, copies of records from churches, mosques, temples or other houses of worship, Social Security information, and U.S. Defense Department records.

Incredibly, there are even requests for personal photographs of "special family events" from 2006 to the current time including but limited to "(1) Thanksgiving meal, (2) Christmas morning, and (3) birthdays depicting Jeffrey Gray Royall."

An extreme examination of Royall's last three years of life is what is requested by Matthews.

Now square that with what is actually required to prove residency according to the general statutes - G.S. 163-127.5 subsection (b).

"If the challenge is based upon a question of residency, the candidate must show all of the following: (1) An actual abandonment of the first domicile, coupled with an intent not to return to the first domicile. (2) The acquisition of a new domicile by actual residence at another place. (3) The intent of making the newer domicile a permanent domicile. (2006‑155, s. 1.)."

That's it.

Questions that could be answered with a few utility bills, mortgage or rental payment check stubs and a print out from the DMV.

Instead, Royall, who we assume has a full-time job and was notified of the challenge no earlier than July 2, has had to spend time, probably away from his job, and money, probably on an attorney, to gather all of the subpoenaed documents.

Because of the enormous effort that would be needed to mount a defense, perhaps Matthews was hoping Royall would yell the the proverbial "uncle" and drop out of the race? So far, however, Royall has not. And at press time, continued to prepare.

Interestingly, according to the statutes, the challenger can also be subpoenaed to testify during the hearing. And while Matthews' testimony would have no direct bearing as to the facts of the challenge, hearing his version, under oath, on what was said during a meeting held by Sheriff Cain, and which Cain acknowledges took place about the potential challenge, would provide a clearer understanding of the motivating factors behind the decision to initiate the process.

Again, there is no question about Matthews' rights to challenge a candidate's residency. But the method, means and real motivations behind the challenge can be.

CC