New Hampshire Community Rights Network
102 Lakeview Hts., Alexandria, NH 03222 info@nhcommunityrights.org 3-8-17 Re: HB-368, an act relative to the heating of certain state-owned buildings in Concord and making appropriations therefor. Dear Mr. Chairman and Senate Capital Budget Committee Members, NH Community Rights Network assists communities in elevating their right to protect themselves and the places they live, for the sake of the health, safety and welfare of residents, local economies, social justice, and environmental sustainability. NH Community Rights Network opposes HB 368 and encourages you to do the same. HB 368 is special interest legislation. There is nothing wrong with corporations making a profit and having legislative support of projects. But the decision to move forward with such projects against the will of affected communities and ecosystems reveals corporate determination to exercise its claimed "right" to profit at the cost of communities wanting to protect their health, safety and welfare, economic sustainability, and natural environment. Residents impacted by the production, transportation and use of additional fracked-gas infrastructure in the Granite State are expressing opposition to such harmful activities. Just think back to the withdrawn Kinder Morgan, Northeast Energy Direct pipeline project. Any expressed support for fracked-gas infrastructure by politicians, lobbyists and those that are in a position to profit from these projects, in the face of significant opposition from those most affected, does not justify your support nor does it constitute any statewide benefits. The plan to shut down Concord Steam and convert it to a fracked-gas burning plant at an exorbitant cost to Granite Staters is simply put, bad legislation. Liberty Utilities is looking to use New Hampshire as a resource colony for profit. Not giving affected communities a final say in the matter is inconsistent with the rights enumerated for residents in our state constitution or our long history of local decision-making through Town Meeting. The State is charged with protecting the rights of residents, not corporations. Part 1, Art. 31 of the New Hampshire Constitution makes clear the purpose of the meeting of the New Hampshire legislature, “The legislature shall assemble for the redress of public grievances and for making such laws as the public good may require.” The state constitution does not say that your purpose is to make such laws as special interests may require. Clearly, Part 1, Art. 8 of the state constitution makes your job very easy; “All power residing originally in, and being derived from the people, all the magistrates and officers of government are their substitutes and agents, and at all times accountable to them.” Listen, do not just hear the voice of the people – for your power is derived from the people and you are at all times accountable to the people. NHCRN opposes HB 368 because the conversion of Concord Steam from a NH-sourced wood product biofuel to fracked-gas to benefit Liberty Utilities does not protect the health, safety or welfare of human or natural communities. I urge you to vote ITL on HB 368. Sincerely, Michelle Michelle Sanborn NHCRN Coordinator, Board of Directors www.nhcommunityrights.org
1 Comment
New Hampshire Community Rights Network
102 Lakeview Hts., Alexandria, NH 03222 info@nhcommunityrights.org 3-7-17 Re: SB 3, an act relative to domicile for voting purposes. Dear Madam Chairwoman and Election Law Committee Members, NH Community Rights Network was founded to educate and empower communities and elected officials about our individual and collective right to local self-governance in order to secure and protect the inherent and unalienable rights of all inhabitants of New Hampshire to economic, social and environmental equality and justice, including the rights of nature. SB 3 does not propose to protect or expand the voting rights of people within the Granite State. Quite the opposite, this bill proposes to infringe upon the voting rights of those people that may rightfully vote according to existing law and yet somehow find themselves not meeting such a definition of domicile. Therefore, NH Community Rights Network stands opposed to SB 3 and encourages you to vote ITL. Law is organic and should change with social needs demanding that protections be specifically extended to human beings that simply want the very same protections that others enjoy. Individuals that “fall through the cracks” of defined domicile will not receive the same protection of their voting rights as those individuals that clearly do meet such a definition. Part 1, Art. 31 of the New Hampshire Constitution makes clear the purpose of the meeting of the New Hampshire legislature, “The legislature shall assemble for the redress of public grievances and for making such laws as the public good may require.” SB 3 is a proposed law that would restrict voting rights, which is not for the public good and therefore should receive a unanimous vote of ITL by the members of this committee. Clearly, Part 1, Art. 8 (Accountability of Magistrates and Officers) of the New Hampshire Constitution makes your job very easy, “All power residing originally in, and being derived from the people, all the magistrates and officers of government are their substitutes and agents, and at all times accountable to them.” I urge you to respond to, not just hear the voice of the people – for your power is derived from the people and you are at all times accountable to the people. Maintaining election integrity is important. The Granite State already has in place, a state constitution and existing laws regarding the voting rights of those that inhabit this state. Let’s not create a problem where there isn’t one. NH Community Rights Network assists communities in elevating their right to protect themselves and the places they live, for the sake of social equality and justice through the right of local community self-governance. It is not enough to have the right to vote when corporations and governments are able to influence not only how we vote and determine what we vote for, but even whether we can vote. SB 3 is a voter restriction bill and should be recommended ITL by the committee. Respectfully, Michelle Michelle Sanborn NHCRN Coordinator, Board of Directors www.nhcommunityrights.org http://www.laconiadailysun.com/opinion/letters/102380-michelle-sanborn-2-27Senate Bill 109 was voted down last week by the state Senate. They refused to authorize town moderators to perform a public, random, verification count on vote-counting machines. With only voiced support for SB-109 from a few senators, it is clear that the New Hampshire Senate would rather assume vote-counting machines are accurate than to have evidence of their accuracy. An amendment was recommended by prime sponsor, Sen. Martha Fuller Clark during the session, but the Senate would not overturn the committee recommendation (3-2 ITL) in order to consider the amendment. The amendment addressed concerns expressed by the Attorney General's office. In order for the governed to give consent (as articulated in Part 1, Art. 1 of the New Hampshire Constitution) and hold elected officials accountable (as Part 1, Art. 8 of the New Hampshire Constitution declares is their right) through a vote cast, people in each town, city, ward and unincorporated place have a fundamental right to vote (as we see in Part 1, Art. 11 of the New Hampshire Constitution) and receive a verified accurate vote count. The responsibility for verifying the accuracy of that vote count is held within each community and constitutionally assigned to the town moderators. But the Granite State is approaching 90 percent of municipalities using secret, proprietary software in vote-counting devices without any specific clarity or method to a moderator's constitutional duty to verify the accuracy of the vote-counting machines. SB-109 proposed a means and a method for town moderators to fulfill their constitutional duties and state law where vote-counting devices are used. Moderators take an oath pursuant to Part 2, Art. 84 of the New Hampshire Constitution and are bound by Part 2, Art. 32 to govern the election process, to openly oversee the counting of votes on election night and make a public declaration of an accurate vote count. In a better political climate, SB-109 might not be necessary, but town moderators have recently had their constitutional authority questioned and challenged by state election officials, and it is absolutely necessary to reaffirm in explicit law, authority that empowers moderators to fulfill their constitutional duty to openly and accurately verify votes counted by vote-counting devices. Why do state election officials and our senators object to town moderators fulfilling their constitutional duties and numerous state laws that hold them accountable for an accurate vote count? Reach out to your senator and ask how they voted on SB-109. Go to (http://www.nhcommunityrights.org/news--updates/an-accurate-vote-count-doesnt-count-in-nh) for additional information to assist you in speaking with your senator about SB-109. New Hampshire Community Rights Network (NHCRN) stood up for election integrity and one of our most basic civil rights, our right to vote and have our vote counted accurately by supporting and providing testimony in favor of SB-109. Join "NHCRN" on Facebook or visit them online at www.nhcommunityrights.org to learn about educational opportunities and sign up to receive newsletters and updates about the Community Rights Movement. NHCRN is a grassroots, non-profit organization of community rights efforts, educating and empowering communities and elected officials about our right to local self-governance. Michelle Sanborn NHCRN Coordinator It is not good enough to say, after every election, “We can’t prove fraud.” We need evidence that vote counts are accurate.
www.sentinelsource.com/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/it-s-time-we-knew-our-votes-counted-by-deborah/article_6db1281b-ba3c-5fcf-9e97-ad663678f7c4.html 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 Citizens know better: no verified count on election night, no trust in count tabulated in secret2/21/2017 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:
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 CELDF filed a lawsuit against the federal government - arguing that federal law violates our constitutional right to a healthy climate.
CELDF filed the lawsuit on behalf of Spokane, WA, residents. The suit asserts that federal law - which preempts communities from banning fossil fuel rail shipments - violates the constitutional right to a healthy climate and local self-government. With the new president claiming climate change is a "hoax," people and communities are turning resistance into action. http://celdf.org/2017/01/pr-spokane-arrestees-sue-u-s-government-seek-overturn-federal-preemption-local-health-safety-laws-concerning-coal-oil-trains/ SB 109 and HB 145 Updates:
http://us12.campaign-archive1.com/?u=d7dc9b9ebb731d9f1f94dee44&id=4688399581&e=9dd25a4e30 www.dailycamera.com/guest-opinions/ci_30725306/merrily-mazza-why-we-need-lafayette-climate-bill
City councils, state legislators, state agencies, and U.S. senators and representatives have shown that they are either powerless to — or simply won't — protect the people from corporate harms. The industry and its minions have shut off every legal avenue to protect our communities and residents. There is no alternative to right this blatant injustice other than accept our moral responsibility and use nonviolent civil disobedience to break unjust laws. Merrily Mazza is a member of Lafayette City Council. New Hampshire Community Rights Network
102 Lakeview Hts., Alexandria, NH 03222 info@nhcommunityrights.org 1-11-17 Re: HB-145, requiring municipal approval for siting high voltage transmission lines. Dear Mr. Chairman and Committee Members, I am here today as a resident of Alexandria, NH and to speak on behalf of the NH Community Rights Network (NHCRN) in support of HB-145. NHCRN was founded to educate and empower communities and elected officials about our individual and collective right to local self-governance in order to secure and protect the inherent and unalienable rights of all inhabitants of New Hampshire to economic, social and environmental justice, including the rights of nature. NHCRN believes that sustainable environmental and economic development can be achieved only when the people affected by governing decisions are the ones who make such decisions. Corporations have been using preemptive processes such as the Site Evaluation Committee (SEC) to override local decision-making authority that is carried out in the democratic process of local Town Meetings. When the SEC, made up of industry representatives, is given preemptive power over the will of communities most affected, we must ask ourselves whose interest is really being heard. It certainly isn’t that of the residents or ecosystems most affected. Corporate lobbyists will likely oppose this measure as they must assure the ability of the corporations they represent, to have the easiest access to a decision that favors their plan to profit. There is nothing wrong with corporations making a profit and having a smooth process that oversees the permitting of projects. But the decision to move forward with such projects against the will of affected communities reveals corporate determination to exercise its claimed "right" to profit at the cost of communities attempting to protect their health, safety and welfare, economic sustainability, and natural environment. Residents impacted by high voltage electrical transmission lines projects in the Granite State have overwhelmingly expressed opposition throughout the ongoing SEC hearing process. The expressed support for high voltage transmission lines by politicians, lobbyists and those that are in a position to profit from these projects, in the face of significant opposition from residents, does not constitute community support or community benefits. The plan to use Granite State communities as resource colonies for profit without giving affected communities a final say in the matter is inconsistent with the rights enumerated for residents in our state constitution or our long history of local self-governing through Town Meeting. The State is charged with protecting the rights of residents, not corporations. Clearly, Article 8. (Accountability of Magistrates and Officers) makes your job here today very easy. All power residing originally in, and being derived from the people, all the magistrates and officers of government are their substitutes and agents, and at all times accountable to them. I urge you to listen, not just hear the voice of the people – for your power is derived from us and you are at all times accountable to us. NH Community Rights Network (NHCRN) assists communities in elevating their right to protect themselves and the places they live, for the sake of the health, safety and welfare of residents, local economies, and environmental sustainability. NHCRN supports HB-145 because residents affected by high voltage transmission lines must have recognized authority to make the final governing decision as to whether or not such projects move forward. Sincerely, Michelle Michelle Sanborn NHCRN Coordinator, Board of Directors www.nhcommunityrights.org (603) 524-2468 As a Trump Administration Fast Approaches, Cities and Towns Gear Up for Political Resistance12/30/2016 Back in March, when Donald Trump was facing off with two now-forgotten candidates for the Republican Party’s presidential nomination, the small town of Barnstead, New Hampshire, was quietly protecting its citizens. At their annual town hall, residents voted unanimously for a city ordinance establishing the right to freedom from forced religious identification.
The reality of a Trump presidency fast approaches.This inconspicuous action was part of a growing national movement for strengthened community self-governance that has found new purpose as the reality of a Trump presidency fast approaches. It came in the form of a community bill of rights, a charter or ordinance that affirms certain rights within a municipality. Similar bills have granted the right to a clean environment, safe and affordable housing, health care, and worker’s rights, among others. http://www.yesmagazine.org/people-power/as-a-trump-administration-fast-approaches-cities-and-towns-gear-up-for-political-resistance-20161229/ New Hampshire Community Rights Network posted an update
Story update 1 hour agoThere are renewed and new preemption threats at the state and federal levels that will affect the people and ecosystems of NH in the coming years. Preemption efforts are targeting social justice, public health and safety, workers' rights to livable wages, unneeded energy projects, water toxicity, and more. The ongoing threats of preemption suggests that we must shift our activist strategy to a proactive method - not waiting until individual bills, amendments, or regulations are passed against our local efforts to protect the health, safety and welfare of our human and natural communities. NHCRN IS EAGER AND READY TO EDUCATE RESIDENTS ABOUT THE NH COMMUNITY RIGHTS AMENDMENT AND WE NEED YOUR HELP TO ACCOMPLISH THAT OUTREACH AND EDUCATION. Please consider a tax-deductible donation to the NHCRN Community Rights Awareness Campaign - Thank you! http://www.nhcommunityrights.org/donate.html A new movement is working to protect our environment through the recognition of its fundamental rights. It’s an idea whose time has come.BY MARI MARGIL
FROM DECEMBER 20, 2016, 4:39 PM – 8 MIN READ http://democracyjournal.org/arguments/nature-and-the-law/ “Antrim residents impacted by the proposed Antrim wind project have overwhelmingly expressed opposition to this project throughout the SEC hearing process,” said Michelle Sanborn of the New Hampshire Community Rights Network, which supports resident-based decision making on such projects. - See more at:
http://www.unionleader.com/energy/Wind-power-foes-in-Lakes-Region-concerned-about-Antrim-approval-12192016 To the Sentinel,
Jill Stein began the recount process in three states that showed narrow victories for Trump and were way out of line with unadjusted exit poll projections. Recount supporters asked, “Do we have a voting system which is accurate, secure and just? Is this a voting system we can trust?” The answer is no, not until many more informed citizens push for change. Please go to Jill2016.com find the,Michigan recount filings and read affidavits from seven experts. http://www.jill2016.com/mirecountfilings Did you know that a private corporation programs memory cards that “count” 87.5% of NH votes and that its computers can be hacked without detection? Or that one infected memory card can infect every other memory card it programs? Robust hand counts (or other independent checks) are absolutely needed to ensure legitimate vote counts.. That’s why the NH Ballot Law Commission, in approving the flawed technology in 2006, said towns/cities could also hand count ballots to ensure accuracy on election night (as NH law and Constitution require). Recounts are not enough. My wake call came during the 2008 NH Presidential Primary Recount. I was horrified by what citizen observers documented about poor ballot chain of custody procedures and the very real possibility of ballot tampering. ”(Search for “sham recount Bev Harris” to see some of those documented problems.) http://blackboxvoting.org/when-is-a-recount-a-sham/ Also, search for “David Cobb Mark Halvorson recount” to see what Minnesota and New Mexico citizens insisted on fixing after they understood the vulnerabilities in their voting systems in 2004. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YR0Q7M8XYEw NH citizens can do that too. But first, as Cobb says, people have to become informed, get angry, then get involved. I’ve been at this since early 2008. Fact: There is no evidence to prove that our 2016 elections were legitimate. Will we have that evidence about the NEXT elections? The answer will be up to us. Deborah Sumner Jaffrey, NH 03452 NHCRN is a non-profit, grassroots organization that is primarily dependent upon donations. There is much work ahead of us in the new year to protect the rights of people and nature. Please make your tax-deductible, year-end donation to the NH Community Rights Network. Thank you!
http://us12.campaign-archive1.com/?u=d7dc9b9ebb731d9f1f94dee44&id=5aa50b24a9&e=9dd25a4e30 By DAVID BROOKS
Monitor staff Tuesday, November 29, 2016 There seems to be an easy solution to a rash of people doubting the validity of election returns in New Hampshire: Always audit the results. That’s the argument of some academics who say that regularly recounting certain races in most or all voting precincts, without waiting for anybody to request them, could help reassure the public that neither machines, nor officials are interfering with election tallies. http://www.concordmonitor.com/auditing-elections-NH-6444570 Tuesday, November 22, 2016
http://www.ledgertranscript.com/Ways-to-strengthen-democracy-5956261 The recent election’s divisive tone left many disgusted, worn-out and lacking in enthusiasm toward politics. This could not be more dangerous, as support is needed to promote community rights, revisit Citizens United, and work together to address the many challenges ahead. At the headwaters is the need for election reform. Corruption was identified as the number one issue that American adults feared, with 75 percent believing their political parties are corrupt, according to an article in Bloomberg Businessweek. So how can we get unlimited, special-interest money out of politics? On Nov. 8t, a majority of Americans cast a vote for a candidate who promised to appoint Supreme Court justices who “will stand up and say no to Citizens United, a decision that has undermined the election system in our country because of the way it permits dark, unaccountable money to come into our electoral system.” This is a step in the right direction, but it will have to come before the Supreme Court, and only then can justices begin to unwind the host of decisions, of which Citizens United is only one. Decisions dating back to the 1800s have torn at the fabric of our democracy when corporate influence began to usurp the rights of we the people. Originally, every corporation had a public purpose stated in its charter and was accountable to the government. Since then, multinational corporations have become stateless, with their sole focus being shareholders rather than the interests of any people or place. To remedy this, citizens must demand that corporations be restructured as national public-purpose legal entities prohibited from engaging in electoral politics. The resulting outcome would be accountability and an economy in which communities are free to cooperate for the common good rather than forced to compete for corporate favor. Secondly, to break through our polarized political atmosphere we need to connect with people we don’t always agree with. Social media is a wonder, but it mostly serves as an echo chamber to reinforce existing views. It’s not a substitute for talking to people, asking questions, and learning why people support certain policies. Instead we need to get out of our individual comfort zones and find ways to meet others face-to-face to engage in authentic and respectful conversations. It is time to step up to protect our real democracy from those who profit from division, picking our battles with persistence and determination. On Nov. 29 at 6 p.m., Monadnock area residents will gather at the Peterborough Community Theater, 6 School St. in Peterborough, to view “We The People 2.0,” a new film that sheds light on innovative strategies communities are embracing to strengthen democracy. This event is co-sponsored by New Hampshire Community Rights Network and MONIFF. Follow-up activities will be discussed and determined by those in attendance. John Friede lives in Peterborough. Published: November 16, 2016
A U.S. bankruptcy court judge in Manchester has tentatively approved the sale of the former USA Springs property in Nottingham and Barrington to a Massachusetts investor who had previously told town officials that he wished to withdraw groundwater from the site. View original source here. New Hampshire moderators take an oath to protect the integrity of an election, to assure the public their votes were counted and recorded accurately. Derry Moderator Mary Till stood by that oath in the September state primary.
Exercising substantial authority given New Hampshire moderators under RSA 659:60, Till, adhering to all election rules, chose to conduct a random hand-count audit, on election night, to check the accuracy of the primary’s computer results. About 750 ballots were counted. The audit took approximately one hour. Till said she had five teams, plus two sorters. The cost to Derry residents: virtually nothing. All volunteered their time, since the town clerk had no budget to pay them. In a 2010 memo to the town of Swanzey, Deputy Secretary of State David Scanlan wrote: “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.” Yet, the state of New Hampshire continues to discourage moderators from doing such commonsense checks, on election night, when errors can be found and most often corrected. Counting votes in public assures the transparency essential for election integrity. Lack of transparency allows those whose design is tampering with the votes an opportunity to do so without detection. Till said she felt it her responsibility to “check to make sure Derry machines were working properly.” Without an observable vote count, and no means of verification, voters must trust the computer results. By conducting an audit, Till exercised her right and duty to prove to voters that the computer tally was, in fact, accurate. Although a random sampling, thanks to her, it helped assure Derry voters that the precinct machine audited was working properly. New Hampshire moderators in computer-count communities need to follow her lead. The public needs to understand the vulnerabilities of a concealed computer vote-counting process and encourage and support its moderators’ efforts to provide actual evidence of an honest election. JANICE SEVENE Swanzey |
Archives
April 2024
|