High Priestex Mortellus seeks to use a religious mononym in a six-way Soil and Water Supervisor election
By Annie Dance | Lake Lure News | Cops & Congress | News & Commentary | Reporting from Rutherfordton, NC
The North Carolina State Board of Elections (NCSBE) voted unanimously at its remote meeting on August 6 to make a declaratory ruling on a Rutherford County candidate’s request for the use of a preferred religious name as opposed to their legal name on the ballot in November’s General Election.
Mortellus, a self-described “Gardnerian Wiccan Priestex, necromancer, author, and public speaker,” is one of six candidates running for Rutherford County Soil and Water Supervisor.
Mortellus is also the founder of Indivisible Rutherford and chair of the North Carolina Democratic Party Interfaith Caucus.
The ruling, however, did not involve a final decision for Mortellus, whose legal name is Terrayle Leigh Amorello, according to public voter records. That is scheduled to come at another meeting on Aug. 20. The ruling included what state law says about the five questions in a petition, four of which were standard for a declaratory ruling, according to Adam Steele, associate general counsel for the board. The fifth question was denied.
State law says that a person aggrieved can ask a state agency to issue a declaratory ruling as to the validity of a rule (one of the state board’s rules) or the applicability to a given state of facts — whether a statute administered by the agency, or a rule or an order of the agency.
According to the petition and statement, the candidate was advised by the Rutherford County Board of Elections, under the guidance of NCSBE, to change the petitioner’s voter registration to Mortellus, in which case the mononym could appear on the ballot. The candidate returned to change their voter registration to reflect the first name Mortellus, last name “Nln” (No last name), and completed the filing, paid the filing fee, and was accepted as a candidate.
The county board of elections director, Dawn Lovelace, reportedly told the candidate that it would be acceptable to bring their passport on election day when voting, saying everything would be okay. But, the petition states that later that same day, the NCSBE reversed or modified its guidance and advised that the candidate’s ballot name would have to include a surname because that’s how names are alphabetized on the ballot. The candidate requested clarification concerning the legal basis for the NCSBE’s interpretation and specifically requested guidance regarding the treatment of religious names under North Carolina election law.
The candidate said the state board treated their religious name like a nickname, citing state laws about using nicknames, but didn’t answer their questions. They also claimed that their ballot designation and voter registration were altered without their execution of amended documents, signature, consent, and/or prior notice. All of which led to the petition for the declaratory ruling.
Steele said the board could decide to grant the request and then issue a decision on the merits, deny it, or take no action, which then after 30 days is treated as a denial.
“This is just to decide the merits of it,” he said. “It’s just that preliminary step of whether you’re going to add a future meeting.”
The fifth question, Steele said, asks if the person’s situation has been handled properly and that’s something, he said, isn’t procedurally proper for a declaratory ruling.
“That fifth question kind of asks for like fact finding into the situation, and the rule that the state board has adopted for these says you can’t have a declaratory ruling when it requires an evidentiary hearing,” he told the board.
Board member and Secretary Stacey “Four” Eggers IV asked Steele if the request for the ruling was just to interpret and make a declaration on what the law states, not necessarily a ruling upon how the candidate’s name should appear on the ballot. He also asked if they want a different name and are denied, the proper way to go about it is through an appeal.
Steele replied that there are different ways to resolve the decision being made.
“The way that I would look at it is the requester saying, under these sets of facts, what is the law and how does that apply?” he said. “And then, even though it wouldn’t directly resolve whatever issue that they have, it would at least say this is what should happen, and so if the facts on the ground meet that, then that is what would happen. It’s one way to get your answer for the requester.”
Eggers said his concern is that if they granted it and then ruled upon it after the deadline for ballot printing, it wouldn’t fix or change anything for the requester’s candidacy. He wondered, though, if it would at least provide clarity as to what the local law states.
Steele said that was correct and advised the board to consider the merits at the Aug. 20 meeting and then issue a final ruling before the ballots are printed.
Board chairman Francis DeLuca asked Steele if the board has ever had someone who didn’t want to use their legal name on the ballot in the past. Steele replied that it does happen on occasion, but it is occurring more often this election cycle than ever before.
NCSBE Executive Director Sam Hayes mentioned a name of Madame Justice before his time on the board. It involved Durham lawyer Rachel Lea Hunter, who wanted to use the nickname on the ballot in a race for the state Supreme Court.
“Mr. Director, as I recall, I believe this board, I think unanimously, decided that that was not a proper name under the statute to go on the ballot,” Eggers said.
He would later state that although he wasn’t opposed to hearing the request for a declaratory ruling and more formal guidance, he is somewhat hesitant to allow people to put whatever name they want to on the ballot for various reasons.
Steele also suggested that it would be helpful in the future.
The board is scheduled to meet again on August. 20.
Learn more about the 2026 election on the NCSBE website.
—
This newsletter is supported by readers like you. Paid subscribers have access to the full archive.
—
🏛️ All those mentioned are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Learn more about this newsletter, ethics policy, how you can help shape this work, and support it. Follow on X and Facebook. Send constructive criticism, fan mail, and tips with public documents for future stories: CopsandCongress@gmail.com
