Ed Naile, CNHT

Hear Ed Naile every Wednesday morning on WLMW 90.7 FM on the Girard at Large radio show or listen to the archives at Voter Fraud Radio

Out-of-State Voters OK With The Ballot Law Commission & Vice Versa

Last Monday, David Scott and I were before the NH Ballot Law Commission to argue a simple point about Dover’s voter checklist under an old statute that had not been used in 40 years. It was the only statute available to do what Mr. Scott wanted – to clean up Dover’s voter checklist before 2016. So he complied with the process in a very limited time frame to prepare for the hearing.

The BLC wanted to limit the discussion to one very limited issue, unless it served them otherwise, and that was: “Are the Dover city officials doing their job under the law.”

That is an odd way of describing the way election officials do their business in NH but that is the hand we were dealt.

We presented evidence that citizens only see two means of identifying voters, a name and an address. Neither one can be checked on Election Day - with same day registration. That would be very difficult with long lines of same day voters showing up.

Even if Dover election officials wanted to check the address of a voter the NH AG’s Office sent out a memorandum to all election officials two weeks before the November 4, 2014. I got a copy mailed to me from a friend.

It has some disturbing language:

 Page #2

CAUTION: Under no circumstances should an applicant be turned away at the time and place of registration. Applicants who do not have documentation with them to establish their qualifications should not be told to go get such documentation. Rather, they must be given the opportunity to prove their eligibility by swearing to the Election Day registration form.

Page #3

CAUTION: Under no circumstances should a voter be turned away at the time and place of check-in because they do not posses sufficient photo identification. If a voter is unable to present photo identification when checking in to vote, they shall not be told to go get such identification. Rather, they must be given the opportunity to sign a challenged voter affidavit. Election officials should not in any way suggest to a voter that they must have a photo identification to vote. Thus, there should be no mention of photo identification to voters in or around the polling place until they are with the ballot clerks. Likewise, there should be no signage displayed at the polling place or on its grounds, regarding photo identification requirements, other than what has been distributed by the Secretary of State.

Notice how the memorandum from the AG’s Office says specifically that the same day registrant “must be given the opportunity” to sign a voter affidavit – not, shall sign the voter affidavit?

Why doesn’t the AG’s memorandum simply say “shall sign” the affidavit?

It’s the job, under state law, for the local election officials to determine if a person is a “qualified voter” using their own knowledge, not the AG’s memorandum.

How does an election official in NH conduct business with an AG memorandum using questionable language?

The person in charge of elections is the Secretary of State.

 652:23 Chief Election Officer. – The secretary of state shall be the chief election officer for the state. The secretary of state shall provide information regarding voter registration procedures and absentee ballot procedures for all voters, including absent uniformed services voters, absent voters temporarily residing outside the United States, and federal ballot only voters domiciled outside the United States. Instructional and informational materials published by the secretary of state for clerks to provide such voters shall include information on how to communicate electronically with election officials. Source. 2010, 317:4, eff. July 18, 2010.

Back to my question to the deaf ears of the Ballot Law Commission:

How are local election officials to do their job if the AG sends out a memorandum like this?

And if you think the specific language in this memorandum is a mistake we have another reference on page #4:

RSA 659:27. The moderator shall offer the Challenged Voter affidavit to every voter to whom a challenge is upheld. Here is the current language of the statute the AG referenced above:

 659:27 Challenge of Voter; Affidavit. – 
    I. A voter offering to vote at any state election may be challenged by any other voter registered in the town or ward in which the election is held, an election official, a challenger appointed by a political committee pursuant to RSA 666:4, or a challenger appointed by the attorney general pursuant to RSA666:5. 
    II. Upon receipt of a written challenge, the moderator shall determine if the challenge to the ballot is well grounded. If the moderator determines that the challenge is well grounded, the moderator shall not receive the vote of the person so challenged until the person signs and gives to the moderator an affidavit in the following form: I, ____________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) under penalties of voter fraud, that I am the identical person whom I represent myself to be, that I am a duly qualified voter of this town (or ward), and have a legal domicile therein. My telephone number (requested but optional) is _______________, and my email address (requested but optional) is _______________. If the moderator determines that the challenge is not well grounded, the moderator shall permit the voter to proceed to vote. 
    III. No voter or appointed challenger shall challenge a person's qualifications to be a voter at the election day voter registration table.

Source. 1979, 436:1, eff. July 1, 1979. 2009, 278:3, eff. Jan. 1, 2010. 2010, 366:4, eff. July 23, 2010. 2014, 319:7, eff. Sept. 30, 2014.

Back in 2004 the NH AG’s Office used a similar last minute memorandum to gut the ability of challengers in NH to do their job and now we have jumped to 2014 and make sure all ballots, no matter from who or wherever, are in the box and counted.

So much for election officials doing their jobs and voter affidavits are not subject to the Right to Know Law in any case.








I've Been To Some Secret Meetings

The eating of our own has begun at a pretty good clip, I would say. Welcome to Election 2016.

The ultra conservative Wall Street Journal, ok, I fib, has a very revealing story, from private sources, that Governor Scott Walker is flip-flopping on illegal immigration.

This flip-flopping tidbit is from Republican sources at this secret meeting. My senses say, “Hold it right there!”

Were these Republican sources Republicans the likes of Shawn Jasperite Republicans?

How about Fergus Cullen style Republicans, were they the sources for dirt on Governor Walker?

Could the unnamed Republican sources include one, or several, of the hundreds of Republicans who have already latched onto a candidate among the 20 or so we already have doling out positions and dollars.

To all readers of the Wall Street Journal:

It is early spring in New Hampshire and I have a news flash I am about to deliver to the uninitiated.

If a New Hampshire resident is not out tapping maple trees he is probably tapping some eager presidential candidate for every last drop of flatlander money he can boil out of him.

So take this flip-flopping story with a grain of salt and a tea spoon of syrup until the secret Republican meeting sources names come out. Or you can believe what you read in the WSJ. Either way it’s a risky business trying to tell who is stabbing who in the political back for their choice of the next nominee.

(Who is the WSJ backing? I thought it was Bush.)


Hands In The Air Don't Purge II

Dover, NH has an interesting voter checklist.


It seems that Republican candidates can get a hundred pieces of their political mail returned when mailing first class to just two wards.

But Democrats get just a handful of returned mail, if any, from voters they claim to have known moved or passed away.

How can that be?

Here is what State Rep. Southworth of Dover said at the Ballot Law Commission hearing, under oath:

State Rep. Tom Southworth, D-Dover, questioned the significance of the returned letters, noting that dozens of campaign mailers he’s sent out have come back undeliverable.

“I believe the odds in my ward of a nonresident voting are almost zero,” he said.

In 2004, then State Rep. David Scott mailed some 300 letters to same day voters and got back about 150 as undeliverable.

2006 saw then Rep Woods get over 100 mailers back from the post office from just two wards. I have those and others she sent CNHT.

Recently, David Scott mailed 900 of the over 1000 same day Dover voters  from just four months ago, and 70 came back as undeliverable during the first mailing.

The Dover city Clerk said she and her team are diligent about removing names of voters who have left Dover.

So how does this work out?

Maybe the Post Office is having sport with the Republicans?

Could it be the Dover City Clerk is helping Democrats by providing Democrats with clean voter lists?

Or is someone not quite telling the truth?

The petitioners have their returned mail. We brought it to the hearing.

Hands In the Air Don’t Purge. (Dover’s new motto.)


Hands In The Air Don't Purge

Yesterday I had the privilege of presenting some hard facts to the entire Ballot Law Commission regarding the “unprecedented” citizen petition (RSA 654:38) to purge the voter checklist in Dover, NH. The petition was the idea of Dover resident David Scott a former Dover City Councilman and State Rep.

Dave Scott lost a race in Dover back in 2004 by 30 votes. He mailed 300 letters to same day voters in that race and 150 came back undeliverable by the USPS. He became suspect of the Dover checklist and how many people on this list of about 15 thousand really live in Dover.

In 2006, State Rep. Phyllis Woods ran for re-election and did a targeted mailing of voters in two wards getting back about 100 post cards as “undeliverable.” Rep Woods gave The Coalition of NH Taxpayers those and other returned mail, which I used as an exhibit yesterday.

This hearing was about a new mailing David Scott did weeks after this last November 4, 2014 election where out of a targeted mailing to about 900 same-day registrants, 70 came back as, “no such street, address, number, etc., from the USPS. Dave and his volunteers whittled that down to about 40 names of recent voters who had addresses the USPS does not recognize.

This was his evidence that a city wide purge of the checklist be done BEFORE the upcoming 2016 election, something Manchester just did in January last year on the initiative of the Manchester City Clerk.

This cost David Scott, and his volunteers, lots of time and over $600.00. CNHT chipped in $300.00 as well.

Along with the BLC up at the big table in Dover City Hall was Secretary of State Bill Gardner, Mr. Scamon and their attorney. Dover had an attorney and the NH AG’s Office sent a Mr. Labonte. It was a well attended event even though the outcome was preordained.

My goal, as well as David Scott’s, was to get some information about the poor condition of NH voter checklists out statewide, since the adoption of same day registration came along. That went well for us as far as I am concerned.

In 2012 NH had some 99,300 people, about 14% of total voters, register same day at the polls. Over 20,000 showed up without any form of identification they were willing to show. That number extends, for the most part, down to every little town and city. Since NH doesn’t purge its voter lists for ten years after any year ending in the number one, names stay on NH voter lists for years. If you walk into any polling station to vote, you don’t need ID and you can never be caught because you can give a fake name or you can vote in the place of someone of your gender before they get to the polls.

NH has almost zero transparency regarding voter information.

I can get the entire Vermont voter database emailed to me with a simple request at no cost. Connecticut has its database on-line with birth date, date of registration and ID number. In NH I can not even see a voter’s real address, real name, birth date, signature or the last place he was registered as we could just ten years ago. There is almost no way to tell who a NH voter is from public records. And the cost to do anything statewide is prohibitive for some reason even though the statewide database is a public document.

Our job yesterday was to point that out, which we did to a subdued crowd of progressives who like the way things are.

That was the fun part, having this entire group of election officials stuck at a table with our CNHT videographer recording our training video of what passes for election integrity in NH.

Part two coming soon.


Spending For Spending's Sake

Picked this one up at breakfast the other morning:

Henniker just lost its highway garage and everything in it to an electrical fire caused by a piece of stored equipment. Now they want to replace the whole operation with whatever replacement money they can pry from the hands of the insurance company. See Hopkinton’s fire for how well that goes.

The fire was a total loss, and in municipal spending terms, that is sometimes a good thing as in all of a sudden there is a plan to move the highway garage to a new location. Of course this new location has several expensive drawbacks but does show there was probably a desire to move there before the fire.

Then the pile-on spending at the Henniker Town Meeting last week begins. The bought a brand new fire truck for one half a million dollars which they will put in the rather new one million dollar fire house they built for a volunteer department.

The new truck passed with two votes!

Funny thing is, the truck they are replacing didn’t make it to the big Highway Dept fire. It never left the building.

This reminds me of people who feel bad going shopping to brighten their mood.

Oh well, it is Henniker.