Bigjon
10th January 2012, 07:23 PM
NH Secretary of State: "Citizen Election Observers Threaten Election Integrity" (http://www.opednews.com/articles/NH-Secretary-of-State--Ci-by-Nancy-Tobi-120107-272.html)
By
Nancy Tobi (about the author)
Prior to the 2010 midterm elections New Hampshire citizens, concerned that the optical scanning machines used in their towns concealed the vote count from the public, asked their local election officials to instead conduct public hand counts.
It is perfectly legal in New Hampshire to do public hand counts of ballots instead of running them through the concealed computerized count. After all, the NH Constitution clearly states that votes shall be sorted and counted in open meeting, in public.
The local election officials turned to the New Hampshire Secretary of State for guidance in how to respond to the request made by voters in their community.
Referring to NH citizens as "special interest groups", the Secretary of State said in a memo to local election officials: "where special interest groups are maneuvering to pressure moderators into conducting hand counts, caution should be used." The memo indicated that ceding to citizen requests for public vote counts could cause "the loss of the integrity of the election itself." The full memo is appended below.
During the last three decades the NH Secretary of State has personally overseen the proliferation of unconstitutional concealed vote counting. Today computerized vote counting tallies roughly 90% of the votes cast by NH citizens.
In New Hampshire (and all of New England) these computers are programmed by a sole source vendor by the name of LHS Associates. Ken Hajjar, LHS Associates vice president, is a convicted felon, a former cocaine trafficker.
In its second line of business, LHS does data mining, collecting demographic information about the very same voters and communities for whom LHS is programming election results. Combining its two areas of business, LHS Associates data mining might help identify community voting trends.
It's common knowledge by now that voting machines can easily be programmed to flip election results so votes for Candidate A are counted instead for Candidate B. If I want to rig an election, I might be interested in the demographic data collected by LHS Associates and I might be very interested in the programming of voting machines in those neighborhoods not particularly friendly to my candidate.
While the NH Secretary of State is concerned that citizen oversight and public vote counts are dangerous to election integrity, NH citizens are more concerned about LHS Associates programming our election results, NH's system of concealed vote counting, and the fact that statutory checks and balances designed to preserve our election integrity are neither followed nor enforced by NH's Secretary of State. And more often than not, these checks and balances are intentionally undermined and removed through legislative and policy actions endorsed and implemented by the NH Secretary of State.
NH's Secretary of State has a long-cultivated aura of respect and authority, resting principally on his three decades-long role in preserving NH's hold on its "first in the nation" primary. The Primary brings in millions of dollars to the NH economy and propels its winner into the general election with buckets full of NH Primary Winner Cash. Nobody in NH wants to publicly question the integrity of its Secretary of State because there is simply too much cash at stake.
There are lots of things to be concerned about when it comes to the NH Secretary of State and how his office conducts elections in the Granite State. For more information about this, see Bev Harris's recent article about NH's election trap doors
and my article from 2008 providing background on NH elections
And in the BlackBoxVoting.ORG NH forums
The NH Secretary of State's memo to local election officials is cited below.
Copies bud. Email address removed , Mavrogeorge, Matthew
Subject: Requests to have moderators hand count ballots
Dear Town Clerk:
Within the last few days, we have been fielding inquiries from local election officials about citizens and interest groups requesting the moderator conduct a hand count of ballots after they have been counted by an electronic ballot counting device. Our thoughts on this matter follows. Please share with other election officials in your town.
There is no provision in state law that provides a mechanism requiring moderators to conduct a hand count of any contest on ballots that have already been counted by an electronic ballot counting device. If a moderator suspects a problem with the security or functioning of an electronic ballot counting device, the moderator is authorized to take the device out of service (RSA 656:42). Similarly, the moderator at his or her discretion may count any race on the ballot by hand if, for a specific reason, they feel a need to verify the result of the electronic ballot counting device.
Pressure from special interest groups for a moderator to conduct an election in a certain way is inappropriate. The decision of whether or not to use an electronic ballot counting device is made at town meeting by a majority vote of the voters present, and that is the appropriate forum to have that discussion. The moderator is in many ways an election judge, an impartial arbiter at the polling place, who is elected on the basis of being able to run an election fairly and impartially. Moderators should not be placed in the potential position of being a lightning rod for the agenda of a special interest group.
In the specific instance where special interest groups are maneuvering to pressure moderators into conducting hand counts, caution should be used. Some of the pressure comes with offers from the special interest groups to count the ballots themselves. Letting members of these groups count ballots could result in serious chain of custody issues, and loss of the integrity of the election itself.
Sincerely,
David Scanlan
Deputy Secretary of State
By
Nancy Tobi (about the author)
Prior to the 2010 midterm elections New Hampshire citizens, concerned that the optical scanning machines used in their towns concealed the vote count from the public, asked their local election officials to instead conduct public hand counts.
It is perfectly legal in New Hampshire to do public hand counts of ballots instead of running them through the concealed computerized count. After all, the NH Constitution clearly states that votes shall be sorted and counted in open meeting, in public.
The local election officials turned to the New Hampshire Secretary of State for guidance in how to respond to the request made by voters in their community.
Referring to NH citizens as "special interest groups", the Secretary of State said in a memo to local election officials: "where special interest groups are maneuvering to pressure moderators into conducting hand counts, caution should be used." The memo indicated that ceding to citizen requests for public vote counts could cause "the loss of the integrity of the election itself." The full memo is appended below.
During the last three decades the NH Secretary of State has personally overseen the proliferation of unconstitutional concealed vote counting. Today computerized vote counting tallies roughly 90% of the votes cast by NH citizens.
In New Hampshire (and all of New England) these computers are programmed by a sole source vendor by the name of LHS Associates. Ken Hajjar, LHS Associates vice president, is a convicted felon, a former cocaine trafficker.
In its second line of business, LHS does data mining, collecting demographic information about the very same voters and communities for whom LHS is programming election results. Combining its two areas of business, LHS Associates data mining might help identify community voting trends.
It's common knowledge by now that voting machines can easily be programmed to flip election results so votes for Candidate A are counted instead for Candidate B. If I want to rig an election, I might be interested in the demographic data collected by LHS Associates and I might be very interested in the programming of voting machines in those neighborhoods not particularly friendly to my candidate.
While the NH Secretary of State is concerned that citizen oversight and public vote counts are dangerous to election integrity, NH citizens are more concerned about LHS Associates programming our election results, NH's system of concealed vote counting, and the fact that statutory checks and balances designed to preserve our election integrity are neither followed nor enforced by NH's Secretary of State. And more often than not, these checks and balances are intentionally undermined and removed through legislative and policy actions endorsed and implemented by the NH Secretary of State.
NH's Secretary of State has a long-cultivated aura of respect and authority, resting principally on his three decades-long role in preserving NH's hold on its "first in the nation" primary. The Primary brings in millions of dollars to the NH economy and propels its winner into the general election with buckets full of NH Primary Winner Cash. Nobody in NH wants to publicly question the integrity of its Secretary of State because there is simply too much cash at stake.
There are lots of things to be concerned about when it comes to the NH Secretary of State and how his office conducts elections in the Granite State. For more information about this, see Bev Harris's recent article about NH's election trap doors
and my article from 2008 providing background on NH elections
And in the BlackBoxVoting.ORG NH forums
The NH Secretary of State's memo to local election officials is cited below.
Copies bud. Email address removed , Mavrogeorge, Matthew
Subject: Requests to have moderators hand count ballots
Dear Town Clerk:
Within the last few days, we have been fielding inquiries from local election officials about citizens and interest groups requesting the moderator conduct a hand count of ballots after they have been counted by an electronic ballot counting device. Our thoughts on this matter follows. Please share with other election officials in your town.
There is no provision in state law that provides a mechanism requiring moderators to conduct a hand count of any contest on ballots that have already been counted by an electronic ballot counting device. If a moderator suspects a problem with the security or functioning of an electronic ballot counting device, the moderator is authorized to take the device out of service (RSA 656:42). Similarly, the moderator at his or her discretion may count any race on the ballot by hand if, for a specific reason, they feel a need to verify the result of the electronic ballot counting device.
Pressure from special interest groups for a moderator to conduct an election in a certain way is inappropriate. The decision of whether or not to use an electronic ballot counting device is made at town meeting by a majority vote of the voters present, and that is the appropriate forum to have that discussion. The moderator is in many ways an election judge, an impartial arbiter at the polling place, who is elected on the basis of being able to run an election fairly and impartially. Moderators should not be placed in the potential position of being a lightning rod for the agenda of a special interest group.
In the specific instance where special interest groups are maneuvering to pressure moderators into conducting hand counts, caution should be used. Some of the pressure comes with offers from the special interest groups to count the ballots themselves. Letting members of these groups count ballots could result in serious chain of custody issues, and loss of the integrity of the election itself.
Sincerely,
David Scanlan
Deputy Secretary of State