Last month I was sent an email by Dover City Councilor Dave Scott who has been working the same day voter registration lists in his area of Dover NH. He told me he had just been asked by “Bud” Fitch, who is in my humble opinion the NH Attorney General's Office equivalent of Sargent Shultz, if he would forward his 2004 voter fraud investigation materials to the AG's Office.
Why Fitch would want to see this material now I don't know other than the statute of limitations has run out on the last election. Dave Scott has brought the same material to Election Law Committee hearings already. This request does fall into the 2000-2001 “investigation technique” that was used by the AG's office back when we first started looking into voter fraud seriously, deny, delay, deny, so that much at least makes sense.
I attended the joint House and Senate hearings on voter fraud back in 2001 and remember supervisors of the checklists from several towns coming in begging for help from the state about non-resident voters. Most of those people have given up looking to the State for help which is why some taxpayers in different parts of the state are still are doing investigations on their own.
Dave Scott, at considerable expense to himself, mailed about 1000 letters to same day registrants who VOTED in Dover. He got back 115 from people who claimed, just weeks before, to live at a certain location. Dave Scott found about 11% of recent voters could not be found. There were 96,000 same day registrants that year, statewide.
Below is the response letter Dave Scott sent to the AG's office. The 115 names and addresses are not included here in my article:
220 Back Road, Dover, NH 03820
Phone 603 750 5007, Fax 603 750 5081
E Mail: Inter6 (at) comcast (dot) net
February 7, 2006
Bud Fitch Fax: 223-6229
Office of Attorney General
State of New Hampshire
CC: Bill Gardner Fax 271-6316
I want to get this out to you immediately because of the deadline which you have. As mentioned my work load is now much larger than before. In addition to my full time business clients I am now a City Councilor which is turning out to be a half time job.
However I have managed to pick up some data from a year ago. Listed below is list of individuals who registered and voted on election day in Dover. First class letters were sent to these individuals welcoming them to Dover.
We had a total of 115 envelopes returned by the post office as undeliverable for a variety of reasons. I believe I sent to you some envelopes on category 1 and 2 which are a list of individuals, some of whom had forwarding addresses in another state and some had forwarding addresses in towns other than Dover. Of those I believe you identified a certain number and advised the Dover Election clerk to remove them from our voters list.
Here are the other categories and I still have a box full of these returned addresses if you think there is any further useful work that could be done with the remaining 90 or so returned envelopes. I believe about 25 of the 115 voters, whose Dover residence was questionable, have been removed from the Dover voting roles.
These were the envelopes returned of potential voter violations in Dover.
1. Letters returned - with out of state return address = 10
2. Letters returned - with other New Hampshire town return addresses = 11
3. Letters returned – Post office indicated – no such street or street number = 14
4. Letters returned – forwarding address different than voting address given = 13
5. Letters returned – Post Office said not deliverable = 21
6. Attempted delivery – person now known at that address = 31
7. Moved left no address = 115
I don’t remember how many letters we sent out to the list of same day voters we obtained. As I recall it was about 1,000. If that number is correct we had a return of about an 11%.
Is it correct that those to whom you sent letters advising them of being removed that there will be some follow-up to see that they register their cars in their proper community?
Please let me know if I can be of any further help.