Diane St. Germain
NHCRN Board of Directors
Center Barnstead, NH

http://www.eagletimes.com/news/2017-02-27/Opinion/Fighting_for_community_rights.html

Right to work for less, voter suppression, welfare wages, pipelines, transmission lines, contaminated water, contaminated air, and threats to healthcare, public education, job security and LGBTQ and immigrant families and minority communities — who isn’t feeling battered by the daily assaults on our quality of life and our planet?
Our local, state, and national struggles to rein in the assumed power of corporations and their lobbyists swarming the New Hampshire legislature and U.S. Congress have left us exhausted yet committed more than ever to make things right.
Many of us are questioning how long we can hold up, given issues popping up like whack-a-mole in every facet of our lives.  We’re pulled in a million directions and our efforts become diluted as we get bogged down in fighting permits, government appointments, legislation that undermines job security, civil rights, voting rights and on and on.

​SB 109 was voted down in the NH Senate yesterday with a voice vote refusing to authorize Town Moderators to perform a public, random, verification count on vote-counting machines. 

An amendment was recommended by prime sponsor, Sen. Martha Fuller Clark during the session, but other members of the Senate would not overturn the committee recommendation in order to consider the amendment. The amendment addressed concerns expressed by the Attorney General's office.

Read more about it here: ​http://us12.campaign-archive2.com/?u=d7dc9b9ebb731d9f1f94dee44&id=fd86271669&e=9dd25a4e30

To Honorable Members of the NH Senate Election Law and Internal Affairs Committee:
A puzzled public is trying to comprehend what may have happened in the 2016 presidential election. Growing numbers of concerned citizens have come forward, calling for evidence that supports accusations of a "rigged" election. They question: If Russia could do it from the outside, certainly it could be done from the inside.
With increasing awareness,  public thought turns to how our computers count votes secretly (out of the public eye), using secret proprietary software vulnerable to hacking.  Computer security expert Dr. Herbert Hugh Thompson, Adjunct Professor in the Computer Science Department at Columbia University,  "determined not only how easy it was to hack into the GEMS software, but also how simple it was to change votes inside the system without leaving any record of the change behind."   http://www.ninaillingworth.com/2016/04/28/hacking-democracy-2006-hbo-documentary-wicked-game-prologue/  
"The real issue," says Bev Harris, founder of BlackBoxVoting.org:  "Our right to self-government, and how current election systems have stripped away necessary public controls."   "Why hacking demos are now insanity (toward more effective approaches)" March 2011.
In lieu of the above vulnerabilities, and the fact that more and more citizens want to know their votes are protected, it is difficult to understand why our State will not allow moderators to exercise their authority to conduct  checks and balances on election night.  The State's intervention has stripped away the only means possible for moderators to do so. Amended bill, SB 109, will protect the moderator’s right to exercise his or her duty to conduct crucial random verification hand-counts.
Remember your oath. Uphold the Constitution and stand behind the amended SB 109 on Feb. 23. There is no good reason for not supporting such a common sense public procedure. In a Democracy, voters should never be forced to "blindly trust," unverified results tabulated in secret.   
Committee members, NH Senate, this is your opportunity to let moderators provide voters evidence they are contributing to an honest democratic vote-counting process, rather than a sham, which it is without verification and citizen oversight. Old English law (1703)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashby_v_White still holds true: the right to vote includes the right to examine an election to know votes were counted and recorded accurately.
Janice Sevene

​FAQ on SB 109(Amended)

What does SB 109 do?  SB 109 as amended, proposes to clarify moderators' authority to randomly and openly conduct a verification count of machine-counted ballots, after polls close, but prior to attesting to the accuracy of the vote. This bill provides a method for moderators to comply with the duties they take an oath to uphold in Part 2, Art. 32 of the NH Constitution, state law, and the right of the people to an accurate vote count. SB 109 as amended provides an opportunity for moderators to assure themselves and voters that the machine count is accurate.
Does SB 109 require moderators to perform a verification count?  No. The moderator may, at his or her discretion conduct a verification count of machine-counted ballots.
Aren't the vote-counting machines used in NH secure from intentional or unintentional tampering?  Although the actual vote-counting machines used in NH are not connected to the internet directly, the secret proprietary software programmed onto the memory cards for each election can receive undetectable, intended and unintended viruses or malware from the programming computer owned and operated by a private industry - which can then infect numerous voting machines once inserted.
Would SB 109A require multiple changes in our election laws? SB 109A is consistent with all currently existing election laws.
How does the Moderator choose which machines and which races to verify?  The amended version of SB 109 states that if the moderator chooses to do a verification count, the machines and races to be counted MUST be publicly and randomly selected - such as with the roll of a die, or picked out of hat. Under the amended version, no one person, not even the moderator is free to select a particular machine or race for the verification count.
Does SB 109A change any requirements regarding "pre-election testing" of vote-counting machines? SB 109A in no way, changes any requirements with respect to "pre-election testing" as described under current law.
Who would be authorized to conduct the verification count? There are many references in current law (RSA 658:5, 658:7, 658:14, and 659:58) to the right and duty of the moderator to appoint as many election officials as deemed necessary. The assistants referred to in SB 109A would be sworn in under RSA 658:7 at which point they become election officials. Nothing in SB 109A changes any of these laws.
Does SB 109A affect voter intent on ballots? SB 109A does not address the issue of voter intent therefore, RSA 659:64 would remain the governing statute of who decides voter intent.
Is a verification count the same thing as a recount?  No. RSA 660:1 through RSA 660:31 describes the process for recounts. SB 109A clearly states that candidates are free to request a recount under RSA 660 whether or not their race is involved in a randomly selected verification count. Verification counts have the potential to reduce requests for expensive recounts.

Re: various proposed election law changes, public hearings scheduled for Feb. 7

To Honorable Members of the House Election Law Committee

     I am a former teacher and reporter and have been involved with NH voting rights and election integrity issues since early 2008. Both branches of my family have deep roots in NH. At least 12 NH ancestors fought in the Revolutionary War.
     I oppose HB 622, allowing all votes to be cast absentee. I am not convinced current absentee voting is secure (example, ballots are not accounted for). Other states have reported significant problems with their vote by mail systems and although I want every voter to be able to VOTE, I support continuing the “need only” system NH uses now. 
     Re: HB 372, 651, 552, 588, I will let the Legislature decide if you believe they are needed. But I am DEEPLY concerned that in recent years the NH government shows it is MORE concerned about preventing the possibility a few ineligible voters will vote and making it more complicated and intimidating for those who don’t live in the same place in the same town as I have for the past 35 years., than in protecting our fundamental and inalienable right to know our votes are counted and reported accurately. 
     There also appears to be a concerted effort to keep students from voting in NH even though they are counted in the census as residents (as of April 1, 2010) of the community where they were attending school and their numbers are included in determining federal funds and voting districts. 
     With 87,5% of all votes now counted by computer, in violation of a number of election laws and our state Constitution, the state fails to protect our fundamental right to have our votes counted and reported accurately and the constitutional requirement of a publicly observed vote count (NHCONST. pt. 2, article 32) so that we KNOW the election results for our communities are true.

Did you know:

• NH does not return over voted ballots to voters in AccuVote locations for possible correction as HAVA law requires and MOST states do? There are at least TWO known fraud possibilities with over-voted ballots?
• NH law does not require reporting of over voted ballots to the state? You have to ask to see the long report of the poll tape in each precinct to know how many computer read over voted ballots invalidated at least one intended vote for one contest (voters voting for too many candidates or the computer reading folds in absentee ballots, stray marks or even tiny printing imperfections as a vote)? Many valid votes are probably not being counted and reported accurately.
• In November, that the Presidential, US Senate and Governor’s race in NH were all won by narrow margins, .34%; .14% and 1.24% respectively? (Someone should check my math.) No candidate in these contests requested a recount.
• Many voters, especially inexperienced ones, circle the ovals, or otherwise indicate their preference in ways that the computer doesn’t read but law, RSA 659:64, requires they be counted? Those votes would probably NOT be counted UNLESS there was a recount.
• If voters use their own marking devices (as all absentee voters would) the computer might not read that mark? 

     In the November election, 1.7% of all Jaffrey ballots (47) contained either over votes or were completely blank. 
     IF those were legal votes (but not counted) and IF that percentage was constant in AccuVote communities statewide, Donald Trump, Kelly Ayotte and Colin Van Ostern may have actually WON in November. Then add to that total, the number of “under votes” which were not counted by the computer but could be determined by people….
     Because NH is in violation of our constitution, the public is not allowed to participate in the oversight process and NOT ALLOWED TO KNOW if our elections are legitimate or not. That is a HUGE PROBLEM that undermines public confidence in the reported results. 
     Evidently 1.5% of all NH ballots cast did NOT include a vote for President. (The “normal” rate  is .5% of voters choosing not to vote in a presidential race.) 
     Do you care about that? Do you agree with me that we have a HUGE problem? Would anyone be willing to work with me and other concerned citizens to try and make sure that in our NEXT election, we will KNOW that election results are legitimate and reflect the will of NH voters? 
     Please let me know if you have any questions. Hope to hear from you.
Deborah Sumner