Restoring Our Right/Duty to Know Our Election Results Are True
dsumneri...@gmail.com
Posted March 9, 2023 by Deborah Sumner
Ballots were removed from public records in 2003 at the request of then Deputy SoS Scanlan and assistant Attorney General. They asked a Senate committee to add the non-germane amendment (in violation of Senate rules at the time) to a bill requiring NH to comply with federal HAVA (Help America Vote Act) law. There is NO opportunity for the public to comment and the way it was passed, it is extremely unlikely that most legislators even knew it was in the bill. “This is the normal way legislation is passed in NH,” Scanlan told the court in my second attempt to access ballots.
This session, two bills have been filed in the House, HB 418 and HB 387 to restore a fundamental right and duty of citizenship, to KNOW our election results are true and that public officials at all levels are protecting our right to self-government.
Attached are amendments offered to both bills. The House Election Law Committee will be making its recommendation on HB 387 next week. You can contact the committee to voice your support or opposition.
BTW, there are references to “overvotes.” HAVA law required computers to be programmed to notify voters/election officials of computer-read overvotes. NH SAID it would comply by the Jan. 1, 2006 but never did.
At this time, there has no enforcement of that violation by either the NH AG (notified in Sept. 2017) or the US Department of Justice (notified in May 2018).
HouseElectio...@leg.state.nh.us
Here’s what I recently sent, favoring a study committee to hash out the differences so we can move forward with all parties on the voters’ and the public’s side. The HB 387 amendment feels adversarial and problematic while the HB 418 amendment aims at a cooperative partnership, which can be improved once we try it out. See what you think.
Dear Honorable Members of the House Election Law Committee
I really appreciate the time and effort legislators have put into this so far and we are getting closer. My first choice would be a study committee (with party balance), including local officials, voters who brought this to the legislature this time, and a representative from the secretary of state’s office. I would be willing to serve as a consultant, at no cost.
The problem: The fact that citizens have come to the legislature numerous times to ask permission to do our job shows 1) the problem with the way the exemption was passed in 2003 with NO evidence of any discussion. It would be nice to have that fact acknowledged and 2) the majority of legislators in the past haven’t listened to legitimate citizen concerns. The court (2016) has said the ballot exemption is a “political decision” for the legislature to hide evidence of problems, including fraud, in our elections. I don’t know a single ordinary citizen who believes our state constitution gives the legislature that authority. It does say courts make mistakes and this is one more reason for voters in NH and our country NOT to trust our election system.
Looking at the two draft amendments for HB 415 (0703h) and HB 387 (0735h) we see parts that address two different kinds of requests to review ballots.
HB 415 would allow us citizens to fulfill our constitutional and legal duty to be part of the check and balance AT THE LOCAL level. (See below) There should be NO cost or minimal cost for us to do our jobs. The review should be at the local level (unless it involves recounted ballots), with the town/city clerk discretion of asking the SoS or AG to supervise. If there is strong trust, we could probably figure out the best way to do it with local supervision and develop creative options, as has happened in other states.
Example 1: After the 2012 election, I wanted to find out why 2.5% of Jaffrey ballots contained overvotes. If the Sos and AG had been willing to work with me, instead of arguing against the court granting me access, we could have found and corrected the problem. The overvote problem in Windham, Derry and other communities probably wouldn’t have happened in Nov. 2020 and the state wouldn’t have spent over $770,000 for the Windham audit. Windham paid additional costs.
Link to state costs:
Example 2: After the Sept. 2020 primary, I wanted to find out why 6% of D voters in Jaffrey showed no vote for governor (not typical). Statewide, 8.9% of D voters showed no vote.
Example 3: Both AG MacDonald and AG Formella ignored a citizen request to investigate the high number of Nov. 2020 overvoted ballots in Derry (4.7% overall) especially with absentee ballots (14.2% on the computer counting only absentees). Citizens or media representatives could have investigated the problem, at no cost to the state or town.
HB 387 addresses someone(s) who want to check the results of an entire race.
Example 1: In 2016, Hassan won the US Senate race by .14%, with 2.1% of voters showing no choice for that contest. Ayotte didn’t request a recount. A citizen review couldn’t have changed the outcome (if fraud was discovered, the candidate and party would take it from there) but their findings could prompt improvements in the election system.
Example 2: After the next Presidential election, supporters of the losing candidate MAY want to look at the ballots.
Respectfully,
Deborah Sumner
Jaffrey, NH 03452
Legal/constitutional duty that says ALL of us at the local level share the responsibility of getting the count right for our town or city
NH CONST. pt. 1, art. 8 (transparency and public accountability) and 11 (equal right for voters to have their votes counted as cast, candidates to be elected), pt. 2, art. 32 say: 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
State’s argument in Saucedo v. Gardner, US District Court, 8/14/18
p.2 ”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. 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.”
p. 31“… 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.”
This statement is supported by:
Tod Davis, Nashua
Barbara Glassman, Nashua
DEMOCRACY and CONCEALED VOTE COUNTING—WE CAN’T HAVE BOTH!
“Trust but verify must be the guiding principle behind every critical step in a democratic election.” Eva Waskell, “The Privatization of Our Democracy,” 2010