NH Supreme Court Brief, Filed 9/8/15 and Reply Brief Filed 10/26/2015

[Deborah Sumner]

Update as of Jan. 30, 2016

As of this date, I have received no opinion from the NH Supreme Court on this case. See file "FinalStatement 1/14/16.

 It includes: "A copy of the Oct. 18, 2015  request of the Attorney General’s office to investigate the claim ballots can be traced to voters. (See Plaintiff’s Reply Brief, pp. 5 and 6.) As of this date, she has received no response. She and this Court must conclude that the lower court erred in determining there is a valid privacy exemption in the absence of any evidence to support the Defense’s claim."

 "Statement: Ex. A shows the trust she had in Jaffrey elections prior to  November 2010. Allowing public access to ballots after the recount period (and any legal challenge to an election) has ended will be a deterrent to the reoccurrence of what probably occurred in the Nov. 2010 Jaffrey election.

            Without evidence the Jaffrey election results are legitimate, the Plaintiff and any objective, thinking person with knowledge of the facts of this case must begin with the presumption Jaffrey election results are illegitimate. She asks the Court to give her a reason, based on factual evidence, to restore her trust in Jaffrey elections and in the New Hampshire election system.

The attached file  "2012_NH_EntireStatePresidentialPriRepublicansPrecinctLevel.csv.png shows the graph included in communication with Attorney General and sent to NH Supreme Court.

 

Comment to accompany Reply Brief

The Defense has repeated its argument that ballots can be traced to voters (but has offered no evidence to support that claim) and that since we can 

observe vote counting at the polls (which observers in computer count locations obviously cannot,) I have now asked the Attorney General's Office (Oct. 18) to investigate the Deputy Secretary of State's claim. If ballots can be traced to us, that is a violation of our expectation that our ballots and votes are anonymous. It would also mean that election officials and the vendor could know how we voted and engage in the exact vote buying/intimidation scheme that the Defense claims to defend NH voters against by removing ballots from public records law.

            When government officials continue to say what makes no sense when presented with undeniable evidence that counters their argument, it is our duty to say so.

I say:

We protect what we value and care about. The Plaintiff and most other NH citizens (in 1784 when the NH Constitution was first ratified AND today) care about all votes being counted as voters intend, honest, transparent and accountable elections and knowing that our elections and government are legitimate.

AND

The ultimate questions for the Supreme Court to answer in this case are: Will it protect NH citizens’ right to self-government? Will it correct the errors members of the Executive and Legislative branches and lower court have made?  

If the Court doesn't do this, it will be up to NH citizens to do it. 

 

Comment to accompany NH Supreme Court Brief 

          There are opportunities to view [NH] ballots following elections…. if people believe there is any misconduct involving the ballots, they can take the issue to superior court. A judge can then decide whether the ballots should be opened and inspected, NH Deputy Secretary of State David Scanlan said recently an article in the Keene Sentinel:

           He neglected to mention that, in the opinion of the Cheshire Superior Court, the person requesting inspection must first prove s/he has a constitutional right to see ballots and prove NH ballots have ever been available for public inspection, even if that inspection would likely prove that voter privacy would not be violated by the review, as Mr. Scanlan has claimed. The fact that at least 23 other states, four because of court opinions, DO make them available, wasn’t an important factor in the Court’s decision.The Defense was not asked to prove that ballots have never been available for public inspection.

          Also, the Defense claimed and the court agreed that inspection of ballots after an election is unnecessary because NH citizens can observe vote counting at the polls.

           Here’s the Cheshire Superior Court’s opinion that has now been appealed to the NH Supreme Court. 

Sumner v. Gardner

          Case number in Supreme Court is 2015-0340, Deborah Sumner v. New Hampshire Secretary of State.

           I have included the following argument in the brief…..

           It is axiomatic that:

•               the right to cast a ballot has no value if it is not counted and reported based on voter intent (RSA 659:64) and that the outcome of elections must be based on evidence that the public can prove to be factual
  
•               denying access to the facts of our elections, denies our ability, individually and collectively, to speak and, if necessary, push our government to improve its practices and/or laws.
  
•              laws (like RSA 659:63 [the counting of votes shall be public] and other election laws consistent with NH CONST, pt. 2, art 32,… which protect the rights of voters, candidates, votes and elections have no meaning if those laws are not followed and enforced by state or local election officials.
  
•              if we [citizens] do our jobs, it is more likely our public servants will do theirs. That is the power and promise previous generations left us and we have the duty to preserve for future generations.