When he decided in November 2008 not to prosecute former city councilman Darryl Stallings Sr. on perjury charges, District Attorney Frank Parrish did so in spite of a successful voter residency challenge that had stripped Stallings of his council seat the year before.

In explaining his decision, Parrish pointed out that the evidence threshold for bringing a criminal complaint was much higher than that used by the Pasquotank Board of Elections to rule Stallings had run for re-election in the wrong voting district.

Specifically, Parrish said the evidence obtained by the State Bureau of Investigation during an extensive probe didn’t make crystal clear where then-Councilman Stallings was living when he filed for re-election on July 13, 2007. Stallings had filed for a city council seat in Elizabeth City’s 3rd Ward based on his residency at an address on Roanoke Avenue, but there was evidence that he also lived on Dunstan Lane, in the 1st Ward, and at a “couple of other addresses” as well, Parrish said.

Because of this lack of clarity about Stallings’ true address, Parrish said he couldn’t prove the ex-councilman had actually been a 1st Ward resident when he signed a notice of candidacy stating that he was a 3rd Ward resident. And without the evidence “to prove that essential point” — that Stallings had lied about his residency on his notice of candidacy — Parrish said his “duty to seek and serve justice” wouldn’t allow him to bring perjury charges against the former councilman.

We thought Parrish’s decision was the wrong one at the time. But not being privy to the evidence on which it was based — the district attorney said state law prohibited him from releasing the SBI’s investigative report to the public — we, like many other citizens outraged by Stallings’ prolonged deception — he had been living outside his voting district for six years and run for re-election four times during that span — had to satisfy ourselves with the fact he had lost his council seat and the hope that he had learned something instructive from the experience.

Stallings apparently did learn something from the experience — that he could violate state election law with impunity and not suffer any consequences.

That now seems clear given Stallings’ decision on Oct. 9, 2009, to again switch his voting address from 503 Dunstan Lane in the city’s 1st Ward, where the elections board said he actually lives and had re-registered him at in 2007, to the same exact address in the 3rd Ward — 305 Roanoke Avenue — where the board said the evidence clearly showed he did not live.

To show just how much he learned from not being held to account for fibbing on his voter registration card, Stallings not only voted in both the municipal and runoff elections of 2009 and 2011 as a 3rd Ward voter, he allowed his wife and four of his children to also claim 305 Roanoke Avenue as their voting address — and then vote in those four elections as 3rd Ward voters as well. For good measure, Stallings’ brother, Timothy, also registered and voted as a 3rd Ward voter in 2009 and 2011, even though it’s pretty clear he lives on Main Street Extended, which is outside the city limits.

We know all of this because Stallings is again the target of a successful voter residency complaint — this one filed by incumbent 3rd Ward City Councilor Michael Brooks over the results of the Nov. 8 runoff election. Brooks lost the runoff to Stallings’ son, Dennis — the third generation in the family to seek political office — by five votes. But in his protest of the runoff result, Brooks was able to show, through subpoenaed tax, electricity and water-sewer records, that the elder Stallings, his wife and at least four of their children don’t live at the 305 Roanoke Avenue address where the family runs a flower shop, even though they claimed it as their residence when they voted.

The board of elections, noting that the number of Stallings family members casting questionable votes almost certainly affected the outcome of the 3rd Ward runoff, has asked the State Board of Elections to order a new election between Brooks and Dennis Stallings. The state board seems of a mind to do that, but is waiting for Gov. Bev Perdue to fill two board vacancies before ordering a Brooks-Stallings rematch.

In the meantime, the local elections board again has taken action to hold Stallings accountable for his blatant disregard of state election law. It voted last week to ask Parrish to investigate whether the former councilman committed perjury by claiming on his voter registration card to live in the 3rd Ward when it’s pretty clear he doesn’t. But this time, the board also wants Parrish to examine whether Stallings’ wife, children and brother also broke the law.

Parrish said last week that he hasn’t received the board’s request yet. When he does, we hope he will again order an investigation.

Of course Parrish may ultimately decide, after fully examining the evidence, that Stallings’ efforts to evade the election residency law are just too confusing to pin down for an honest prosecution in a courtroom.

We certainly hope not. It is decisions like that, after all, that give the impression that prosecutors don’t consider election fraud a serious enough crime to invest the time and resources to stop.

Darryl Stallings certainly has that impression. So too, apparently, does Currituck Commissioner John Rorer. Rorer, who also will be facing Parrish’s scrutiny over how he filled out his voter registration card, recently told a reporter that he’s not concerned about allegations that he knowingly made a false statement on his card because, he said, Parrish has not prosecuted such cases in the past.

Not prosecuting Stallings for this second breach of state election law could also have another negative effect.

Proponents of a requirement to have North Carolina voters produce a photo ID at the polls have clamored that it’s the only way to stop voter fraud. They say that current measures designed to catch election cheaters just aren’t adequate. Common sense tells us this effort to require photo IDs is nothing more than an attempt by conservatives to slow down voting by older citizens and minorities, since they’re the ones less likely to have such identification at the polls. But it’s hard to see how this regressive ploy can be stopped if prosecutors won’t enforce the election laws we already have.