26-Request for Legislative Inquiry: Part 2
dsumneri...@gmail.com
Begin forwarded message:From: Deborah SumnerSubject: Dec. 22, 2025 Request for Investigation of violation of law by state officialDate: December 22, 2025 at 8:36:43 AM ESTTo: inves...@doj.nh.gov, "Jimenez, Dan" <Dan.A....@doj.nh.gov>, "ChongYen, Nicholas" <Nicholas...@doj.nh.gov>Please find two PDF files providing evidence supporting my first allegation of intentional, knowingly misleading of the court attached. I will file evidence supporting the second allegation after you have completed your work on the first one.
Thank you.
Deborah Sumner
Jaffrey, NH 03452
Dec. 22, 2025 Request for Investigation of violation of law by state official, further investigation beyond this allegation is warranted
To the Public Integrity Unit,
Email addresses:
Allegation: Then Deputy Secretary of State David Scanlan knowingly and intentionally mislead the Cheshire Superior court judge and the Supreme Court justices in two cases I filed, enabled by the Attorney General (specifically Matthew Mavrogeorge and Stephen LaBonte, case references: Case 1, 213-2012-CV-00233, 2012-0816; Case 2 213-2014-CV-00139, No. 2015-0340).
Since Mavrogeorge and LaBonte were both new attorneys in the election law positions at the time of these cases, their-then supervisor, Anne Edwards, should also be questioned under oath about what she knew and when she knew it. Michael Delaney was the Attorney General in the first case, Joseph Foster in the second.
The fact that I am beginning this report at 3 am on Dec. 22 is evidence of the injury I still suffer because of the unfathomable injustice done to every NH voter and citizen. Epstein survivors are an example of courage I hope to emulate in continuing with my efforts. Powerful, important men are protected. Women who report their crimes are ignored. Since no line has been defined for the perpetrator, he continues to act with impunity and harm others. That has to change.
Scanlan did NOT act alone. There are others that your investigation should reveal who also need to be held accountable.
Most of the evidence to support my claim should be available in the attorney general’s files and court filings. I have included two separate pdf files, JafChron10/12/15 and 25-PIUDoc that should help an investigator with an initial review. Documents re:1 is copied at the end and 2,3,6, and page 3 from Scanlan’s 2/6/15 affidavit are included in PDF 25-PIUDoc. (You’ll find document re: 3 included twice. My apology.)
Please let me know that you have received this and if you need anything else.
1. 1.Request of SoS Gardner in first case.
2 2. Response from SoS office, signed by his assistant Karen Ladd and PROBABLY the words of then Deputy SoS David Scanlan. I had requested confirmation through the court that SoS Gardner had seen the request and approved the response, but did not receive it. The truthful answer to that question should be part of your investigation.
3 3. Evidence of Scanlan’s intentional misleading of the Jaffrey moderator in Oct. 2010, copied to Bud Fitch and Matthew Mavrogeorge. See also, p. 9 of the attached JafChron 10.12/15, which shows the probability at least one person in Jaffrey was involved in the probable criminal conduct of destroying ballots I had sought through a court order. The other possibility is the town clerk only said she had destroyed them. The AG “investigation” did not require evidence from her of WHEN they were actually destroyed. No one contacted me about the very different version of the story she told me.
4 4. Response to my October 28, 2010 question of the AG (with Nov. 1, 2010 response from Matthew Mavrogeorge, copied to Bud Fitch and David Scanlan) should be in the AG’s files. Mavrogeorge said, in part, “Moderators are given significant authority to determine what procedures at their polling place are necessary to ensure an accurate count.”
5 5. Oct. 3, 2012 request of AG Delaney to investigate the Jaffrey Town Clerk’s reported destruction of the ballots and specific questions posed in my court filings (which Anne Edwards must have been aware of). See court filings dated Sept. 6, 2012 “Memorandum….” And “Petitioner’s Response. To Court’s order….” In the first case and my communication with Stephen LaBonte of March 2, 2013 sent to PIU and Election law on Nov. 28, 2025.
6 6. Page from Mavrogeorge’s Motion to Dismiss, dated Aug. 27, 2012 ,p. 7 included SoS’s allegation that the Legislature exempted ballots to protect voters from “threats, intimidation, and fear of retaliation.” In the second case, LaBonte’s briefs to the Cheshire Superior and Supreme Courts included the same claim.
7 7. 213-2012-CV-00233 opinion of 9/24/12 says, “The legislature has enacted this longstanding practice to protect the voter from threats, intimidation and fear of retaliation as evidenced by RSA 559:35[sic] through RSA 659:40.”
8 8. Mr. Scanlan signed the same affidavit in the Superior Court for both cases. However, in the second case, he signed a second affidavit on Feb. 6, 2015 adding new sections, 13 and 14 and a document. On Feb. 7, 2015 Labonte included that in his filing with the court, in what I see as a “fix the facts around the policy” attempt to influence the court’s ruling. See May 17, 2013 alleged response from William Gardner. See the court opinion. He succeeded.
9 9. After the Supreme Court’s opinion in the second case, March 22, 2016, I discovered the following memo from then Deputy SoS Scanlan and then Assistant AG Bud Fitch, requesting nine amendments to be added to two HAVA-required bills that had already passed the House. You will find it in legislative history for HB 577 (2003) legislation. In spite of the state’s claim, there was no public hearing on the ballot exemption any of these other amendments or the additional amendment added by the Committee of Conference before the House and Senate voted to accept the report in June. ALL members of the Committee of Conference were Republicans. Senator Larsen had not agreed with the additions and been replaced by a Republican senator willing to support it.
10. I reported this new information to AG MacDonald in November of 2017, (summary included at the end, with link to the legislative history, on p. 48 of the PDF file) copied to Anne Edwards, Brian Buonamano in the AG’s office, the Cheshire Superior and Supreme court. Those documents should be available in the AG and court files of those two cases, which had culminated with the Supreme Court’s March 22, 2016 opinion. Filings for the second case can be found in Cheshire Superior Court records, 213-2014-CV-00139 and Supreme Court records, 2015-0340.
Link is to Senate Legislative History for HB 577 (NOT HB 627, which included the ballot exemption). The only information I had previously was Boyce’s claim to the Senate that the amendment was required by HAVA in order to receive an estimated $21 million in federal funds. Senate vote party-line on amended bill and in June on CoC recommendation, all Rs supported, all Ds, including then Senator Joseph Foster, opposed. No roll call of last House vote.
https://gc.nh.gov/BillHistory/SofS_Archives/2003/senate/HB577S.pdf
p. 48 Draft memo 5/02/03 (amendments introduced May 9 by Sen. Boyce)
To: Senate Internal Affairs Committee
Sen. Robert Boyce, Chair
From: David Scanlan, Deputy SoS
Bud Fitch, Assistant AG
For:
William Gardner, SoS
Re: Requested amendments to the Help America Vote Act Bills
The Department of State in consultation with the Attorney General’s Office requests the following amendments:
HB 577 amendments, 1-3
HB 627 amendments 4-9
#7 In anticipation of passage of HB 693m which removes the BLC’s Additional Jurisdiction Statute, RSA 665:7, from the BLC laws, amend HB 577 to conform to HB 693.
#9 Add a new section to HB 627, exempting ballots used for elections from RSA 91-A. This proposed amendment is prompted by a recent Superior Court Order declaring that the ballots cast in an election are not exempt from the right-to-know law and requiring a town to provide a person making a 91-A demand to have access to all the ballots preserved from a recent town meeting. The integrity of ballots and the finality of election results requires that there be limited and highly controlled access to the ballots used for elections. The existing recount and recount appeal provisions provide adequate access to ballots under circumstances
Amend RSA 659:95, Sealing and Certifying Ballots, 660:33, 669:33 Preservation of Ballots after Recount
1638s voted 3-0 in Committee on Internal Affairs (New Title that added “and access to cast ballots” added after bill was enrolled.)
Respectfully submitted,
Deborah Sumner
Jaffrey, NH 03452
1. See above, included in court filings
May 14, 2012
Secretary of State William Gardner
State House, Room 204
Concord, N.H. 03301
To the Secretary of State:
RIGHT TO KNOW – PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST 5/14/12
Pursuant to Part 1, Article 8 of the New Hampshire Constitution (and to fulfill the spirit and intent of N.H. RSA 91A, I am writing to request your support to review ballots cast in Jaffrey, NH in the November 2010 election. (None were cast using the accessible voting machine.) On receipt of your written support, I will arrange a time with local election officials that is mutually acceptable.
According to Part 2, Article 69, you are responsible for the conduct of the deputy secretary of state who, prior to the November 2010 election:
1) interfered inappropriately with the Jaffrey moderator’s decision to conduct a parallel hand count of one of the two federal races, chosen at random. In the past, conducting parallel hand counts has clearly been the moderator’s choice as it was of at least two moderators for the November 2010 election.
2) misinformed election officials and the public about the “legalities” involved and misinformed them about other things, as well.
3) didn’t provide forms for that election so that election officials followed legal reporting requirements.
Two other factors:
1) communication of the deputy included Bud Fitch, who now works for one of the winning candidates in that election (potential conflict of interest)
2) upon notification, the Attorney General and Ballot Law Commission failed to enforce the law or take any public action, which resulted in a question of whether the law would be followed in January 2012 and beyond. (Rep. Susan Emerson subsequently met with you and Mr. Scanlan and reporting requirements were followed for Jan. 2012.
Based on the above, I believe the Supreme Court principle that the value of allowing public access to the ballots in Jaffrey outweighs any governmental interest in nondisclosure. The review won’t affect the outcome of any recount or election but will most likely show that all was fine with the November 2010 election in Jaffrey.
I would be willing to discuss this or engage in mediation in the hope of reaching a non-adversarial agreement.
As provided by the open records law, please respond within five (5) business days. If you choose to deny this request, please provide a written explanation for the denial including a reference to the specific statutory exemption(s) upon which you rely.
Public records request:
REQUEST:
1. Review ballots cast in Jaffrey for the November 2010 general election at a time and in a manner that is mutually convenient for Jaffrey election officials
April 30, 2026
Subject: Follow up to Dec. 22, 2025 Request for Investigation of violation of law by state official
To: inves...@doj.nh.gov, Nicholas...@doj.nh.gov,
I have not yet received any response to my first allegation of perjury re: then Deputy Secretary of State David Scanlan, enabled by individuals in the Attorney General’s office. I reported the violation and sent back up information to you on Dec. 22, 2025.
From additional research, I have found the first mention in public records of Scanlan’s claim re: the removal of ballots from public records law and that access was available through the court. Hope this will help.
Testimony in 2012 re: HB 1548 relative to access to cast ballots when Scanlan knowingly mislead the House Election Law Committee. Gardner didn’t show he was aware of the exemption.
https://gc.nh.gov/BillHistory/SofS_Archives/2012/house/HB1548H.pdf
Election Law Committee Chair Rep. David Bates - Do you know was there ever a request for viewing ballots? And 2) why was this law put into place to begin with?
Bill Gardner, SOS - No requests. I can't say why it was put into law.
Deputy Scanlan - on Cohn - mentioned groups re: cover ups. Bill amended by Senate not in committee of conference. Not the case. I gave the group information. They came back with research. Look up history of bill no sneaky tactics. Recourse for problem with ballots can go to court.
Rep. Kathleen Hoelzel - Why 91A exemption in the 1st place.
Deputy Scanian - 2002 requests to see ballots. No not policy. Statutory support for secrecy.
I repeat there is NO legitimate reason to exempt all ballots to protect voter privacy. Cast ballots are anonymous and, by law, not traceable to voters. Judge Kissinger and five justices on the NH Supreme Court SHOULD have known that.
Justice Hicks, who wrote the 2016 opinion, should have known that the Washington state case he cited (and not presented by the defendants) was NOT relevant to NH ballots.
WHERE did that opinion come from? Did his clerk find it? Or did someone in the attorney general’s office contact him? I am aware of two possibilities that should be checked out.
I will expect SOME response from you by May 8. In the meantime, I will prepare background for the second perjury allegation by Secretary of State David Scanlan that occurred in 2024, enabled by then Assistant Attorney General Brendan O’Donnell and AG Formella.
I continue to believe that the court should have accurate information in order to make an informed decision in cases involving voting rights and our constitutional right to know. When decisions are made based on provably false information, there should be an acknowledgement of and way to correct the error. If that requires legislation, the request should come from the Attorney General and Governor.
The proposed resolution sent to AG Formella and Governor Ayotte on Dec. 8, 2025, and attached here would still be acceptable to me. So far, it appears that continuing the cover up is the AG’s and governor’s choice. I believe a real resolution is in the best interest of NH.
Sincerely,
Deborah Sumner
Jaffrey, NH 03452
May 22, 2026
I expect people are very busy and this reported violation slipped between the cracks, so I am resubmitting what I sent Dec. 22, 2025 and additional information sent on April 30, 2026, copied at the top of the Dec. submission.
One question that needs to be asked: How did Justice Hicks “find” the Skagit case,
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1506163734205180323
decided July 15, 2015, that was not relevant to NH ballots. The defendants had included a CO case, that I had shown was not relevant that I included in my final statement in an Oct. 18, 2015 communication with Mr. LaBonte, copied to Joseph Foster, Anne Edwards and Margaret Hassan.
As a pro se, I didn’t realize that I could appeal Justice Hicks opinion, that the WA case was also not relevant for the SAME reason the CO case wasn’t.
"As it turned out, ballots contained unique barcodes (to ensure all ballots are accounted for) that could be traced to voters by the vendors and election officials. They should have been removed before ballots were cast. Showed they hadn’t learned from the Taylor case you cited."
Since Justice Hicks had revealed a personal relationship with Matthew Mavrogeorge and his parents in my first case’s appeal to the Supreme Court, I am concerned that an individual in the AG’s office (Anne Edwards, a possibility) got that case to Justice Hicks.
Labonte basically used Mavrogeorge’s argument in my second case, which is why Anne Edwards, as the supervisor of both Mavrogeorge and Labonte should be questioned under oath.
SOMEONE should ask Justice Hicks where the WA case came from since this is now a legal precedent based on provably false information of why Scanlan and Fitch asked for the ballot exemption in 2003.
This “material fact” was reported to AG MacDonald, copied to Anne Edwards and others, on Nov. 27, 2017, Subject: Request for NH AG to take appropriate action to correct a serious mistake involving his office.
I received no response.
I’m adding my final statement to the court of Jan. 4, 2016 that includes the Oct.18, 2015 communication as Exhibit C.
I should be near the phone until noon in case you want to call.
Thank you.
Deborah Sumner
Jaffrey, NH 03452
Final statement1:4:16 (see attachment in Part 1.