- The Office of Legislative Services coordinates with the Enrolled Bills Committee. I called them to inquire how this happened. They told me they cannot make changes in content, and limit themselves to suggesting spelling or punctuation changes along with a review to make sure the language doesn't violate existing law.
The Enrolled Bills Committee would have known that Sec. State Bill Gardner and Asst. A.G. Bud Fitch would sign off on it before sending the bill to the governor.
Bud Fitch has since left the attorney general's office to take a position with former Attorney General Kelly Ayotte (now a U.S. Senator). Bill Gardner and/or his key operations guy, David Scanlan, will run the 2012 New Hampshire first-in-the-nation presidential primary.
While removing ballots from public right to know might make it easier to control a presidential primary, it certainly doesn't offer transparency and it violates the public right to self-government, the very cornerstone of both the New Hampshire and the US Constitution. And it goes against trend: Our right to examine ballots is receiving more attention, and more formal recognition:
AN UPBEAT WORD ON THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT CASE
Will appeals court free Aspen ballots?
http://blogs.denverpost.com/carroll/2011/04/25/will-appeals-court-free-aspen-bal lots/47/
By Vincent Carroll
"...Colorado elections aren't nearly as transparent as they should be because election officials insist that the constitutional mandate for "secrecy in voting" means that voted ballots must be kept under wraps.
"But maybe that highly convenient reading of the law - convenient for city and county clerks, that is - is on its last legs. At least that's
the sense I got at a hearing Monday at the state court of appeals involving a case pitting Aspen against an unsuccessful mayoral candidate who is seeking to view digital copies of ballots from the 2009 election.
"Marilyn Marks' bid for the digital images was rejected by a district court, but the three-judge appeals panel appeared somewhat more sympathetic to her goal - as it should be.
"Judge Arthur P. Roy seemed most skeptical of arguments that providing the images to Marks might somehow compromise ballot secrecy. And he was not reassured when the special counsel for Aspen, James True, suggested that an election judge who accidentally left a chocolate smudge on a voter's ballot might later recognize that ballot if it became a public document and thus discover the voter's choices.
"Honestly. This far-fetched hypothetical was offered with a straight face as an argument for barring even carefully regulated public access to ballots.
"True's other main argument was that voters who wrote in a candidate might be identified - not only by their handwriting but also, in a small
community, by the pattern of their votes. Yet both of these possibilities of a secrecy breach are almost as highly speculative as the chocolate smudge. Are these really the best arguments available for opponents of transparency?"
The Enrolled Bills Committee would have known that Sec. State Bill Gardner and Asst. A.G. Bud Fitch would sign off on it before sending the bill to the governor.
Bud Fitch has since left the attorney general's office to take a position with former Attorney General Kelly Ayotte (now a U.S. Senator). Bill Gardner and/or his key operations guy, David Scanlan, will run the 2012 New Hampshire first-in-the-nation presidential primary.
While removing ballots from public right to know might make it easier to control a presidential primary, it certainly doesn't offer transparency and it violates the public right to self-government, the very cornerstone of both the New Hampshire and the US Constitution. And it goes against trend: Our right to examine ballots is receiving more attention, and more formal recognition:
Will appeals court free Aspen ballots?
http://blogs.denverpost.com/carroll/2011/04/25/will-appeals-court-free-aspen-bal lots/47/
By Vincent Carroll
"...Colorado elections aren't nearly as transparent as they should be because election officials insist that the constitutional mandate for "secrecy in voting" means that voted ballots must be kept under wraps.
"But maybe that highly convenient reading of the law - convenient for city and county clerks, that is - is on its last legs. At least that's
the sense I got at a hearing Monday at the state court of appeals involving a case pitting Aspen against an unsuccessful mayoral candidate who is seeking to view digital copies of ballots from the 2009 election.
"Marilyn Marks' bid for the digital images was rejected by a district court, but the three-judge appeals panel appeared somewhat more sympathetic to her goal - as it should be.
"Judge Arthur P. Roy seemed most skeptical of arguments that providing the images to Marks might somehow compromise ballot secrecy. And he was not reassured when the special counsel for Aspen, James True, suggested that an election judge who accidentally left a chocolate smudge on a voter's ballot might later recognize that ballot if it became a public document and thus discover the voter's choices.
"Honestly. This far-fetched hypothetical was offered with a straight face as an argument for barring even carefully regulated public access to ballots.
"True's other main argument was that voters who wrote in a candidate might be identified - not only by their handwriting but also, in a small
community, by the pattern of their votes. Yet both of these possibilities of a secrecy breach are almost as highly speculative as the chocolate smudge. Are these really the best arguments available for opponents of transparency?"
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
