She provides two grounds for this proposition. The State's evidence was such that if the jury found defendant guilty at all, it was because she intimidated Mr. Askew by threats. There was no evidence presented which showed that Ms. Hines interfered with his election duties in any other way. This assignment of error is overruled. We find no merit in these contentions.
Defendant argues that the statute is unconstitutionally vague.
Defendant has the burden of proving that there is inadequate warning or that the statute is incapable of uniform judicial interpretation and administration. 120 N.C. App. Defendant has failed to meet this burden. Undefined words in a statute should be given their plain meaning if it is reasonable to do so. We conclude that this statute is specific enough to warn individuals of common intelligence of the conduct which is proscribed and is certainly capable of uniform judicial interpretation.