Name as it Appears on the Ballot: Mark H. Chilton
Date of Birth: 09/27/1970
Campaign Web Site: www.markchilton.org
Occupation & Employer: Attorney, self-employed
Home Phone: 919-968-8090
Work Phone: 919-636-0371
Cell Phone: 919-636-0371
Email: mchilton@outlook.com
Twitter handle, if applicable: @MarkChilton
1. What in your record as a public official or other experience demonstrates your ability to be effective as the Orange County Register of Deeds? This might include career or community service; be specific about its relevance to this office.
I have previously served as a member of the Chapel Hill Town Council (1991-1997), an Alderman of the Town of Carrboro (2003-2005), and the Mayor of Carrboro (2005-2013), but most of my qualifications for this office arise outside of my past elected service. I received my Juris Doctor degree from North Carolina Central University School of Law in 1997 and have been working in various aspects of real estate and real estate law ever since.
My work in real estate law has involved drafting and recording deeds, deeds of trust, condominium declarations, homeowner’s association documents, releases etc. In other words, I have experience working with a wide variety of the real estate records which this office handles.
Beyond that, I have long been interested in the old land records of Orange County. For over five years now, I have been researching the old land records of Orange County in an effort to understand the history of land use in our area. The result was my book, The Land Grant Atlas of Old Orange County, Volume 2: The Saxapahaw Old Fields. This book traces the origins of land titles in western Orange and eastern Alamance Counties – tracing the title history of about 1,000 different parcels from 1728 through 1818. As well, I drew the metes and bounds of these land grants onto modern maps of the area. A copy of this book has been sent to the editor of the Independent for the committee to peruse. While creating this book is not a prerequisite for the office of Register of Deeds, I trust it shows you my passion for Orange County real estate records.
2. What, in your reckoning, is the chief goal of the Register of Deeds? How would you go about achieving your chief goal?
The most essential function of the office of Register of Deeds is preserving the land ownership records of Orange County. A century+ ago, that meant the physical protection of the hand-written, paper records – protecting them from abuse, from fire, from war, from theft, and from ordinary wear and tear.
Having made an extremely detailed study of the land records of Orange County, I have an appreciation for what is not there – the deeds – the records that were destroyed by war, by rot, by neglect. Orange County was founded in 1752 and its first deed book was opened that year, but that book and its contents are all gone. For in 1781, a notorious Tory by the name of James Munro – an assistant Register of Deeds for Orange County – stole all of Orange County’s 20 or so deed books, burying them in the woods where they rotted.
When Munro was caught, he produced the spot where they were buried, but it was too late. Almost all of the books were destroyed. Only one of the books could be salvaged. With the advent of this crisis, the Register’s office abandoned their deed book lettering system and started with a new set of numbered deed books. The first book was the one colonial deed book recovered from the forest and that is what sits on the top, left-most shelf in the office today, Orange County Deed Book 1.
The result was a devastating loss to Orange County. 95% of the records from 1752 through 1781 were permanently lost. As a title historian who has labored long and hard to try to understand the real estate transactions that must have happened in the 19 deed books that were lost forever, I can tell you I have a unique appreciation for the responsibilities of the Register of Deeds. It is difficult to even come to terms with the scope of what James Munro destroyed.
My point in recounting this tale is this: The single most essential responsibility of the Register of Deeds is the permanent preservation of the land records of Orange County. I believe the best way to do that is to complete the process of digitizing all of our land records, so that multiple digital copies can be stored in a variety of locations, ensuring that Orange County’s land records will be securely stored (with multiple offsite backups) forever.
3. If you are the incumbent, explain what you have done to improve the performance of the Register of Deeds. If you are a challenger, explain what you would do to improve the office.
I believe that Orange County needs to fully embrace e-recording (transmission and recording of instruments via the internet). Right now, only out-of-county attorneys are allowed to use the system. In-county attorneys are required to have their staff bring the documents to the Register of Deeds office. For the dozens of real estate transactions that happen in Chapel Hill and Carrboro law offices every day, someone must drive the documents on a 20 mile round-trip to get them recorded. This is an extremely wasteful practice that is largely unnecessary.
The process for implementing a full e-recording system has begun. As the new Register of Deeds, I will move quickly to ensure that the system is available to all closing attorneys.
4. When it comes to the office of Register of Deeds, how would you make accessing or filing public documents easier and more accessible to the public?
I believe my answer to Question 3 addresses the question of how I will make filing instruments easier.
Regarding making information more accessible to the public, I think there are four important things we can do:
A. Website Improvements and Open Source Software
For those doing title research on the internet – particularly those who are not already trained on Orange County’s website – the search interface is inscrutable:
http://roam.orangecountync.gov/orangeweb/search.do
The ROAM “Web Based Document Inquiry System” is straight out of a 1990 IBM software engineering manual. All the tools are there, but the system is not at all intuitive. It bears a good deal of explaining, but the site provides little or none of that explanation.
Worse yet, the ROAM system does not work properly on all browsers, I find the system near impossible to use on a smart phone, and ROAM insists on using pop-up windows which cause numerous user headaches. In short, Orange County is using a proprietary system that locks out internet users on certain platforms.
In general, I believe that government needs to move away from the use of customized proprietary information software. It limits the end-users choices about which browser and/or platform to use. Proprietary systems are generally more expensive, and in certain ways, they tend to be designed to limit the users’ access to public information.
I believe that it will take time and effort to create a better website, but that a county as sophisticated as ours needs and deserves a first class real property information system that is free, easy to understand and available to all platforms and browsers.
B. Spanish Language Service
I fulfilled my undergraduate language requirement by studying Spanish and also attended a Spanish immersion school in Guatemala one summer. I am a fluent (if improper) speaker of Spanish and have maintained outstanding connections in the Latino community in Carrboro. As Register of Deeds, I will make sure that we improve upon the Spanish language skills of the Register of Deeds staff – particularly on the vital records side where many visitors speak Spanish as their first language.
As well, I have heard Sara Stephenson make the point that the Register of Deeds website is highly deficient in Spanish language content. She has a great point and I absolutely agree that the problem needs to be corrected ASAP.
C. Putting all land records online
At present, ROAM includes land records of Orange County going back net even to the mid-20th century, whereas our records go back to the mid-18th century. While the oldest material is perhaps not as high a priority for being put online, all of that material needs to get out onto the internet, and as Register of Deeds I will make that happen. In short, I’d like Orange County’s system to be at least as comprehensive as Chatham County’s.
Even very old deed books contain at least some information that is relevant and useful to know today. For example, a private easement signed over a century ago will commonly still be in use today; the nature and scope of such an easement is determined by the original language used in the documents granting the easement. Currently for documents of that nature, attorneys must go (or send a paralegal) to Hillsborough to make a copy. That sort of trip is a needless expense for both the lawyer and her/his client. Putting the rest of records online will eliminate this expense (and pollution) in the future.
D. Producing interpretive online content
The other reason to put our oldest material online is because it is desired by researchers. Meeting the public’s information demands is an important responsibility of the office of Register of Deeds. As my avocation, I produce interpretive materials – both in print and online – to aid surveyors, title insurance companies, real estate lawyers, genealogists, environmental engineers, archeologists, preservationists and historians in interpreting the old land records of Orange County. As Register of Deeds, I would produce that type of content to put online – in the public domain – so that this type of information would be as freely available as possible. This would be a small aspect of the job, but it is a unique strength that I would bring to the office.
5. Identify a principled stand you would be willing to take if elected, even if it cost you popularity points with voters.
I believe there can be no remaining doubt that ‘Amendment One’ is contrary to the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court’s decision in the Windsor case last year does not answer every remaining question about same sex marriage, but when read in the context of Romer v. Evans, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, etc., no longer can anyone seriously believe that Amendment One complies with the United States Constitution.
(Un)constitutionality of Amendment One
The key problem with Amendment One is that its intent and legislative history make it clear that the sole purpose of this amendment was to legislate animus toward gays and lesbians. This was the exact reason that Colorado’s Amendment 2 (prohibiting local gay-rights ordinances) was held unconstitutional. Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority in Romer v. Evans: “[I]f the constitutional conception of ‘equal protection of the laws’ means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare … desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest.” (517 US 620)
Applying much the same reasoning in United States v. Windsor, Justice Kennedy again wrote for the majority: “The principal purpose and the necessary effect of this law are to demean those persons who are in a lawful same-sex marriage. This requires the Court to hold, as it now does, that DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. The liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause contains within it the prohibition against denying to any person the equal protection of the laws.” (570 US 12)
The same principles apply to the states through the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment: “No State shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” (US Const, Amend XIV, sec 1) The legislative intent/history of Amendment One leaves absolutely no doubt that it was adopted out of a bare “desire to harm a politically unpopular group” and that as such it is an unconstitutional deprivation of the 14th Amendment equal protection.
Some would have you believe that this is a tenuous position for me to take. But I say this in response: The last thirteen times that a Federal court has looked at same-sex marriage, the court has found DOMA-style restrictions unconstitutional. Those cases range from Federal District Courts in Dixie to the United States Supreme Court. And in every case, the decision was written by a conservative, Republican-appointed judge. In 2014 so far, there have been five decisions in five different Federal District Courts that provisions identical to Amendment One were federally unconstitutional – in Michigan, Utah, Texas, Oklahoma and Virginia. And Federal courts have ordered both Kentucky and Tennessee to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. Full disclosure: Of course, all of those cases are still on further appeal.
Foremost Duty of the Register of Deeds
Some have argued that it is not within the power of a county Register of Deeds to make decisions about the constitutionality of state statutes or state constitutional provisions – claiming that this power is reserved to the courts. But the oath of office for all elected officials in North Carolina (as prescribed in NC Const, Art VI, sec 7) calls upon each and every elected official in North Carolina to “support and maintain the Constitution and laws of the United States, and the Constitution and laws of North Carolina not inconsistent therewith.”
Supremacy of the United States Constitution
This oath acknowledges that the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land. This same point is clearly made in the Supremacy Clause in the federal constitution: “This Constitution… shall be the supreme Law of the Land… any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” (US Const, Art IV, sec 2) And also further affirmed in Article 1 of our state constitution: “Every citizen of this State owes paramount allegiance to the Constitution and government of the United States, and no law or ordinance of the State in contravention or subversion thereof can have any binding force.” (NC Const, Art 1, sec 5)
Enforcement of the Constitution
Because this oath is mandated for all officials in North Carolina, it is clearly understood that there will continually be moments where officials must interpret and apply the United States Constitution. For example, county Boards of Elections do not enforce the following provision of the state constitution: “The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.” (NC Const, Art 6, sec 8) County Elections Directors do not enforce this provision in our state constitution – even though this provisions has never been struck down in any court.
The “being of Almighty God” clause of the NC constitution probably never will be struck down either. Because it’s not enforced, the courts have said, no one is injured by that language being there. Though same sex marriage is a more controversial topic today, the situation is the same. Amendment One is clearly unconstitutional and we do not need a court to tell us so.
Duty to Interpret the US Constitution
Third, given that the supremacy of the US Constitution over the NC Constitution is mandated three times between the two documents, and given that upholding the US Constitution is the first and foremost responsibility of every elected official in North Carolina, it follows that it is not merely within the power of the Orange County Register of Deeds to interpret the constitutionality of Amendment One, but that it is the obligation, the solemn duty of the Register of Deeds to do so.
Therefore, if I am elected Register of Deeds of Orange County, I will uphold the Constitution of the United States of America – and not enforce the parts of North Carolina law which purport to prohibit the issuance of same sex marriage licenses.
6. How do you define yourself politically and how does your political philosophy show itself in your past achievements and present campaign platform?
I would define myself politically as an environmental and civil rights advocate whose activism is expressed through service in local government. I believe that – at its best – local government can help to bring about non-violent social change in the tradition of Gandhi and King, by strategically using non-violent resistance to expose and confront injustice.
My political philosophy showed itself in my non-violent resolution of Occupy Everything’s occupation of the proposed CVS-site at the corner of Weaver and Greensboro Streets in January 2012. See https://www.facebook.com/notes/mark-chilton/satyagraha-oriented-policing/10151255376010224 for a more detailed discussion.
My political philosophy also showed itself at Mega Moral Monday on June 6, 2013, when I organized and lead the Orange County Five in refusing to leave the Capitol and insisting on making an appointment with Berger and/or Tillis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NgDiLG21OM
My political philosophy also showed itself on many occasions in my past leadership on protecting the rights of minorities. Whether defending the Hispanic community against the management of Abbey Court apartments (http://www.carrborocitizen.com/main/2008/07/31/abbey-court-ownership-says-towing-policy-eased/ ), advocating for sewers and other landfill compensation for Rogers Road neighbors (http://orangepolitics.org/2011/04/rogers-road-before-rogers-road ), or defending the Civil Liberties of Public Housing residents, I have always been a leader for social and environmental justice.
I also have a long track record in support of LGBTQ Rights. While I have worked on many issues related to LGBTQ rights over the last 22 years, I highlight here my past leadership of same-sex marriage in particular:
1994 – As a Chapel Hill Town Council member, I introduced (and got passed) NC’s second Domestic Partnership Registration Ordinance. This was accompanied by policy changes allowing registered DP’s of Town employees to receive the same benefits that spouses of Town employees did – a first in Dixie.
1996 – I spoke out against North Carolina’s adoption of the state version of DOMA.
1997-1998 – I helped defend (not as an attorney) the Town of Chapel Hill’s extension of health benefits to registered Domestic Partners of Town employees. The resulting Superior Court verdict in Publius Heterodoxus v. Town of Chapel Hill was the first time that the state of North Carolina recognized any sort of same-sex relationship as being valid in any way.
2004 – I worked with the North Carolina Religious Coalition for Marriage Equality to pass a resolution calling for repealing NC’s state DOMA law. http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/110777/?comment_order=reverse
2008 – I (and the Board of Aldermen) again resolved against state and federal DOMA laws. http://www.carrborocitizen.com/main/2008/12/04/aldermen-support-same-sex-marriage/
2011 – I joined Chapel Hill and Durham elected officials in opposing the scheduling of a referendum on Amendment One.
2012 – I led a dozen local elected officials in Orange County who all voted early together in a display of joint opposition to Amendment One. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151497051805400&set=t.792788271&type=3&src=https%3A%2F%2Fscontent-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ash3%2Ft1.0-9%2F564264_10151497051805400_1275300225_n.jpg&size=612%2C612
2012As Mayor of Carrboro, I was an inaugural member of Mayors for Marriage (a nationwide group of over 300 mayors in support of the Freedom to Marry Coalition).
