26- Request for Legislative Inquiry: Part 3
dsumneri...@gmail.com
Posted by Deborah Sumner, July 27, 2026 Exhibits 1-3 included here. See Part 3, Exhibits 4-7 in separate post.
Sent July 11, 2026 To legislative leaders, House Criminal Justice, Judiciary and Election Law; Senate Judiciary and Election Law Committees, with bccs to members of the media and others (See Part 1 for email addresses)
PIU responded on May 8 about 3 hours later: (See timeline)
“The Public Integrity Unit of the NH Attorney General’s Office is tasked with the investigation and prosecution of criminal wrongdoing committed by State officials acting in their official capacity.
“After a review of your email and the attachments, the Public Integrity Unit has concluded that there is no reasonable suspicion to believe that further investigation would produce probable cause that a crime was committed.
“Accordingly, this office will take no further action.”
No name was included…it may have been a paralegal who did the initial review. PIU wouldn’t tell me.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Deborah Sumner
Subject: Request for Investigation: Abusing Position of Public Trust/Perjury Allegation
Date: May 8, 2026 at 11:31:38 AM EDT
To: inves...@doj.nh.gov, "ALEXANDER.J...@doj.nh.gov" <ALEXANDER.J...@DOJ.NH.GOV>
I am submitting two PDF files providing evidence supporting my second allegation of David Scanlan intentionally, knowingly misleading a court, enabled by the Attorney General. (First was submitted Dec. 22, 2025 and I have not yet received any response. I will follow up with your office next week if I haven’t heard anything from you by then.)
Please let me know you have received this submission and if you need more information and/or have any questions.
Thank you.
Deborah Sumner
Jaffrey, NH 03452
May 8, 2026
To the Public Integrity Unit,
Email addresses:
Allegation: Secretary of State David Scanlan knowingly and intentionally mislead the Rockingham Superior court judge in Shawn P. O’Neil and Town of Danville v. The NH Secretary of State and Attorney General, 218-2024-CV-00876. Scanlan was enabled by then Assistant Attorney General Brendan O’Donnell, who was under the supervision of Attorney General John Formella.
641:1 Perjury. –
I. A person is guilty of a class B felony if in any official proceeding:
(a) He makes a false material statement under oath or affirmation, or swears or affirms the truth of a material statement previously made, and he does not believe the statement to be true; or
(b) He makes inconsistent material statements under oath or affirmation, both within the period of limitations, one of which is false and not believed by him to be true. In a prosecution under this section, it need not be alleged or proved which of the statements is false but only that one or the other was false and not believed by the defendant to be true.
II. "Official proceeding" means any proceeding before a legislative, judicial, administrative or other governmental body or official authorized by law to take evidence under oath or affirmation including a notary or other person taking evidence in connection with any such proceeding. "Material" means capable of affecting the course or outcome of the proceeding. A statement is not material if it is retracted in the course of the official proceeding in which it was made before it became manifest that the falsification was or would be exposed and before it substantially affected the proceeding. Whether a statement is material is a question of law to be determined by the court.
Source. 1971, 518:1, eff. Nov. 1, 1973.
“It is the duty of one who volunteers information to another not having equal knowledge, with the intention that he will act upon it, to exercise reasonable care to verify the truth of his statements before making them…One who makes a representation that is true when made has a duty to correct representations which are discovered to be false or erroneous prior to the time the transaction has been consummated.”
NH Practice, Vol 8 p. 157-158
From court opinion of Oct. 4, 2024, “For the reasons advanced by the State defendants, a hand count following an electronic count would be an unlawful recount.” EX. 1, p.21
The defendants included an October 20, 2016 communication to the then Derry Town Moderator to back up their claim and Scanlan referenced that on p. 2 of his affidavit. EX. 2.
In my Jan. 13, 2025 communication (which Judge Schulman probably didn’t see), I wrote, “I am writing to inform you that I believe your Oct. 4, 2024 opinion was made without full information, and some of it provably false.” I referenced section 4 of Scanlan’s affidavit and explained why it was misleading. EX. 3
4. “To my knowledge, neither the New Hampshire Election Procedure Manual nor any election procedure statute provides a procedure for a municipality to conduct an election in which the municipality uses ballot counting devices to count election ballots and thereafter hand counts those same ballots to determine the results for one or more races on those ballots.” From Scanlan Affidavit
“That is true beginning with the EPM distributed in mid- October, 2016 about the same time the Oct. 20, 2016 communication was sent to Mary Till and released to the press.
“But the EPM language from 2012-through mid-Oct. 2016, which Till relied on, contained this language.
“A statutory study committee has recommended post-election audits of randomly selected race(s) for electronic ballot device towns. Such audits are not required by law. On two occasions, the Legislature has considered but rejected law changes requiring audits, in part because the state completes more recounts than most other states. In recent elections, some moderators have been asked to conduct a second count (hand count) of certain races on election night. Moderators may use their discretion as to whether or not they will conduct such a count on election night.
“If they decide to conduct a second count on election night, they should have a good reason for doing so. Moderators do not need to conduct such a second count just because some members of the public request one.” EX.4
Key Question: Before October 2016, who knew the difference between what moderators had been doing before 2016 and a “recount?” David Scanlan and Mary Till were two of them, see her response to AG Foster of Oct. 28, 2016, which received no response. EX.3, p. 5
Others who knew: Then Secretary of State William Gardner, former Deputy Attorney General Bud Fitch, who called the former Danville moderator’s procedure “an example of NH common sense.” And since moderators had been doing this since at least 2006, Attorneys General Kelly Ayotte, Michael Delaney, and Joseph Foster should have known, along with long-time Associate Attorney General Anne Edwards.
Fitch was not in state government in 2016. The former Danville moderator, Wally Fries, died in Feb. 2016. See EX. 7 testimony from his daughter and reasons he did these checks at the end. I have also added it to the PS at the end.
Background:
2006-Statement by Ballot Law Chairman Gary Francoeur in a public hearing: “Even in the towns that have the machines, they can still turn around if they want to and hand count these things. Nothing is stopping this Committee today from allowing them to do that.
“They choose to use this electronic machine if they want to. They don’t only have to use that. They can also hand count them.”
2008- HB 285 established Electronic Ballot Counting Device Advisory Committee to advise the BLC and Legislature re: voting technology. Among EBCDA Committee’s recommendations:
p.14 “Over the long run, public confidence relies on the state and local history of accuracy, security, transparency, and reliability in the ballot counting process. One of the most effective and least expensive ways to achieve these goals is to conduct random hand-counted audits of tabulator counts immediately after the election. Such audits are valuable because they check the accuracy of the initial counting method from end to end…
”Moderators should continue to have the option of checking `closely contested high-profile races for immediate on-site post-election hand counts as checks on the tabulator.’”
Oct. 2010-In communication with local election officials, then Deputy SoS Scanlan said, “…the moderator at his or her discretion may count any race on the ballot by hand, if for a specific reason, they feel a need to verify the result of the electronic ballot counting device.” EX. 5
Nov. 2010-Then election law attorney Matthew Mavrogeorge confirmed in email communication to me, with copies to Assistant AG Bud Fitch and Deputy Secretary of State David Scanlan, “Moderators are given significant authority to determine what procedures at their polling place are necessary to ensure an accurate count.“ EX. 6, p.1
I had asked the question, copied to Wally Fries and an attorney, because someone in the Secretary of State’s Office had told the Jaffrey Town Clerk this verification check was a “recount” and illegal. The Jaffrey Moderator had checked with the AG’s office, probably Bud Fitch, found out it was legal and had planned to proceed at that time.
2012- mid-October 2016, Election Procedure Manual included: “A statutory study committee has recommended post-election audits of randomly selected race(s) for electronic ballot device towns. Such audits are not required by law. On two occasions, the Legislature has considered but rejected law changes requiring audits, in part because the state completes more recounts than most other states. In recent elections, some moderators have been asked to conduct a second count (hand count) of certain races on election night. Moderators may use their discretion as to whether or not they will conduct such a count on election night.
“If they decide to conduct a second count on election night, they should have a good reason for doing so. Moderators do not need to conduct such a second count just because some members of the public request one.” EX. 4, p. 3
2014- Then retired Danville Moderator Wally Fries shared his parallel hand count procedure with the House Election Law Committee in testimony on HB 1605. (See EX 7 and PS at end.) Then Rep. Mary Till, a member of the House Election Law committee, sponsored the bill. She, David Scanlan, Wally Fries and I were present at the hearing, testified and heard testimony, including from Alexander Shvartsman. Connecticut was also using the AccuVote at that time and post-election hand count audits had found measurable discrepancies traced to a battery depletion problem with the memory cards. CT pressured the vendor to design a new card. (NH continued to use the old cards with known problems.)
NH was not conducting any statewide post-election audits at that time. Till’s bill was intended to spark discussion of that need in the Legislature.
https://gc.nh.gov/BillHistory/SofS_Archives/2014/house/HB1605H.pdf
“Mr. Walter Fries, Danville, N.H. Moderator for a quarter of a century. He has done a handcount at the end of each election as a matter of practice; as a self-imposed audit. He neither supports or opposes the bill. He just wishes to impart his knowledge and experience. He has never found a discrepancy in the counts, between hand counts and machine counts. Suspicion of machines is because electronics and machines may fail from time to time.”
2016-I reported Scanlan’s violation of law (RSA 666:3) to the Attorney General’s office in October. Signed and notarized affidavits from the late Gerhard Bedding of Keene and me are available on request. I conducted my own investigation and determined a finding based on public records and questions I asked Mary Till and David Scanlan.
She was honoring her oath of office and in compliance with all laws consistent with her constitutional and legal duties to certify and report accurate counts.
RSA 659:60 Duties of Moderator
RSA 659:63 Counting to be public
RSA 659:64 Determining Intention of Voter
RSA 659:77 General Neglect by Town or Ward Moderator and Clerk
RSA 666:2 Official Malfeasance, VI. He shall fraudulently declare the state of the vote in the election of any officer.
I found NO evidence of any intentional negligence as claimed by Scanlan under RSA 659:77 General Neglect by Town or Ward Moderator and Clerk. –
I. If any moderator shall intentionally neglect to cause an accurate count to be made of the votes cast as required by law, for which no other penalty is provided, he or she shall be guilty of a violation….”[1]
It is my belief that in interfering with a moderator’s legal and constitutional duties, Scanlan violated the following laws. SoS Gardner and the AG should have prevented him from doing so, making them complicit in the violations and abuse of their positions of public trust. Members of the Executive branch failed in fulfilling their constitutional duties to protect voters, and in so doing, our votes, and in the October 2024 court case by intentionally misleading the judge. This illegitimate opinion can now be used to mislead legislative committees, the media and the public as well.
RSA 666:3 Official Misconduct. – Any public officer upon whom a duty relating to elections is imposed who shall knowingly fail to perform such duty or who shall knowingly perform it in such a way as to hinder the objects thereof shall be guilty of a misdemeanor if no other penalty is provided by law.
RSA 92:2 Violation of Oath of office “…any such person who violates said oath after taking the same shall be forthwith dismissed from the office or position involved.”
RSA 640: 3 Improper Influence (class B felony)
RSA 641: 3 Unsworn Falsification (misdemeanor) 1, (a), (b), 1-4.
RSA 643:1 Official Oppression (misdemeanor)
Who has been harmed by Scanlan’s abuse of public trust and the failure of the Attorney General so far to protect NH voters and our votes?
1. Every voter in NH, including me. The action of state officials has shown that voters and our votes don’t matter. Since 2016, the state has illegally and unconstitutionally usurped the responsibility of local election officials and not allowed them to protect votes or elections as required by law. No branch of government has the legal or constitutional authority to do so.
Knowing that our election results are legitimate is basic to public trust in government. Absent that essential proof, we have no reason to believe our government is legitimate and no reason to allow ourselves to be governed.
As moderators like Wally Fries and Mary Till knew, these election night quality control checks complied with the spirit and intent of the Constitution (pt.2, art. 32)[2]and laws consistent with it and gave voters and candidates a reason to trust the reported results.
Saucedo v. Gardner, 335 F. Supp. 3d 202, 2018 DNH 160 (D.N.H. 2018) show the Attorney General and Secretary of State are well aware of the moderator’s legal and constitutional duties. A Memorandum of Law submitted by Matthew Broadhead on 4/18/18 stated the following:
“New Hampshire’s elections are a decentralized operation and are managed locally by each town and city ward. Although the Secretary of State is the chief election officer in the state pursuant to RSA 652:23, the local clerks and moderators are responsible for overseeing the operations of elections in their towns or city wards. See RSA 659:9; RSA 652:14-a; RSA 659:9- a; RSA 657:23.” p. 2
“Moderators and clerks hold elected offices and are accountable to the voters of their towns and wards, and are not employees of the Department of State. RSA 41:16-b; RSA 40:1….
“Indeed, voters have various recourses to hold moderators accountable whom they believed violated their constitutional rights: they may seek redress against the town or individual moderator for any constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or vote them out of office. RSA 40:1.” p 32
2. Every election official in NH. They have been told they aren’t allowed to fulfill their legal and constitutional responsibilities to voters and candidates on the ballot. If they honor their oaths of office, the attorney general has said he will charge them with a crime (evidence of threat against a moderator prior to 2024 election, affidavit available on request). They and their communities are the ones who can be sued if there is significant computer error discovered. The state does not require oaths of office or background checks for private company vendors, including their sub-contracted employees. The state has shown moderators disrespect/contempt for the important job they do for us voters. That conduct translates into disrespect/contempt for voters and our votes.
3. The Danville selectmen who brought this action against the state in good faith and town meeting voters who passed a warrant article wanting this hand count check for at least one contest as previous Danville moderators had done with the full support of the Secretary of State and Attorney General.
4. Every member of the Department of Justice who takes an oath to the state and federal constitution, in particular Brendan O’Donnell. He was not involved in the 2016 issue but was aware of the continued efforts to resolve it informally with the Attorney General. He inherited this unresolved problem because the two previous NHDOJs (Foster and MacDonald) refused to acknowledge and correct the error. (Lots of evidence in DOJ files, lots of evidence of blatant disrespect for the former legislator and town moderator who was, in her words, “put through the wringer” by the secretary of state.
5.The court system and specifically, the Rockingham County Superior Court judge who issued an opinion on Oct. 4, 2024 relying on Scanlan’s probable intent to deceive him (as he had done in 2010 with the Jaffrey moderator, EX. 6, p. 2). Judge Schulman wrote, “For the reasons advanced by the State Defendants, a hand count following an electronic count would be an unlawful recount.” p 21 of his opinion. EX. 1
David Scanlan KNEW before Oct. 2010 (EX. 4, 5, 6 and 7) and knows today that the hand count verification check is not a “recount.” The attorney general SHOULD know. The judge, however, had no way to know what Scanlan knew.
If the Attorney General and Secretary of State care about public trust in our elections and government, they will learn from people like Wally Fries and Mary Till.
Key Question: Will the Attorney General support that learning or obstruct it and enable Scanlan’s pattern of deceit and harmful conduct to continue?
Conclusion:
Constitutional duties of Executive Branch members, including the Secretary of State and Attorney General: "empowered to protect the interests of the people by taking care that the laws are faithfully executed." Opinion of the Justices, 162 N.H. 160 27 A.ed 868 (2011).
Part II, Article 41 “enforce compliance with any constitutional or legislative mandate, or restrain violation of any constitutional or legislative power, duty, or right, by any officer, department or agency of the state….”
To fulfill my constitutional duty under NHCONST. pt. 1, art. 8, I reported the first allegation of perjury by David Scanlan to the Public Integrity Unit Dec. 22, 2025. In that case, David Scanlan denied he wrote the response to my public records request of William Gardner. But he probably did. The court did not require evidence. But its opinion relied on the perceived integrity and word of William Gardner, which was not Willian Gardner’s word and not “truth.” The six judges involved should be made aware of their mistakes and correct them so they are less likely to repeat them. That’s called “being human.”
In this second allegation, David Scanlan denied that he wrote the alleged “finding of the attorney general” (couldn’t remember, he told me) although he probably did. He KNEW that Mary Till had not conducted an “unauthorized recount.” William Gardner knew, but signed the letter. Did Joseph Foster know? He should have. Anne Edwards and Stephen Labonte, both in the AG’s office at the time, SHOULD have known and had an honest conversation with Scanlan and Gardner and/or advised Foster not to sign it. Their jobs were to protect the voters (and by so doing, protect our votes). They as individuals and the office of the Attorney General failed us.
Remedy preferred by me because evidence presented shows abuse of a position of public trust and a harmful pattern and practice of state actors
“The right to access to restorative justice programs…” as stated in “New Hampshire Victim’s Bill of Rights.”
What has been considered “normal” behavior by entitled individuals will no longer be protected or allowed by the Attorney General. Would my 16 years trying to achieve that be worth it? Yes, I believe it would because other NH citizens can spend 16 years on another governmental area that needs improvement. Other NH voters will have a reason to trust election results and government, something that has not been possible for me since November of 2010.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Deborah Sumner
Jaffrey, NH 03452
attachments:
Pt3EX1-3
Pt3EX 4-7 (File size too large to include here. See separate posting)
Parallel Hand Counts—Example of New Hampshire Common Sense
Former Danville moderator Wally Fries always oversaw hand counting of 1-3 contests/ballot questions on election night to ensure an accurate computer count.
Why:
1. had worked with computers for years and knew there could be breakdowns and their reliability needed to be checked. As a member of several state advisory groups, he also knew the pre-election ballot testing wasn’t enough. The hand count check made it more likely any error would be detected and accurate results would be reported to Concord (as NH Constitution and state law require).
2. knew there had been reported instances of tampering and wanted to discourage any possibility of that happening in his town’s elections.
3. wanted the public to have confidence in his town’s election results.
How:
1. Selective sampling—he chose contests based on a) expected closeness b) vulnerability to tampering c) importance. (For example, he would hand count just the competitive races in Presidential Primaries, and reconcile the “other” piles with total ballots cast and number of voters.) UNH statistician confirmed the validity of this kind of sampling.
2. Double count hand count using “sort and stack method.” (Election officials sort into piles, first counter cross stacks 25 ballots at a time, second counter verifies count or team determines voter intent, reconciles discrepancy). Public could observe.
3. Verified hand count checked with computer total. Reconcile any differences.
If Wally believed three races might be close, he’d check all three. Recounts cost money, he reasoned and at least candidates would know that one jurisdiction had an accurate count.
Cost: No additional cost for town or state
[1] In my communication with the Rockingham Superior Court and others, I wrote: ”My research has shown who wrote the language for the amendment to RSA 659:77 and legislative intent in passing it.”https://gencourt.state.nh.us/BillHistory/SofS_Archives/2010/senate/HB1535S.pdf Then Deputy SoS Scanlan and then Assistant AG Bud Fitch wrote the language as an amendment to a 33-page bill, HB 1535 passed in 2010. There was no legislative discussion on this section. In 2011, Scanlan asked for this change (SB 135). “requires that neglect by moderator or clerk be intentional for the neglect to be punishable as a violation. Requested by the department of state”
[2] NH CONST. pt. 2, art. 32 “governed by a moderator, who shall, in the presence of the selectmen… [and town clerk] in open meeting… sort and count the said votes, and make a public declaration thereof ... NH CONST. pt. II, art. 32 requires that the moderator “sort and count” votes in “open meeting” in the presence of the town clerk, selectmen and “all others who may take an interest in the election, and be able and willing to detect and expose any error, and obtain a correction of it immediately, when it can be most easily corrected.” Opinion of the Justices, 53 N.H. 640, 1873.