Eh, NH Secretary of State David Scanlan? Which one is it?

by
Skip

May 3rd was the Executive Council’s hearing on NH Governor Chris Sununu’s appointee to a Superior Court judgeship, Anne Edwards. A number of people gave testimony, including Dan Richard, a Constitutional Activist.

Here is his testimony again.  Listen closely when Dan begins to talk about how absentee ballots are to be handled by Town Clerks and Moderators when it comes time to count them:

 

 

That ruffled the feathers of our Ruling Class, specifically SecState Scanlan and Attorney Formella. They sent out a formal letter telling those local officials to “never mind those people behind the smoke and curtains” because THEY are the experts.

NEW HAMPSIRE
DEPARTMENT OF STATE

David M. ScanlanMay 18, 2023

Moderators
Town and City Clerks Supervisors of the Checklist

Re: Attorney General & Secretary of State arc the Official Sources of Election Information

Dear Moderators, Clerks, and Supervisors:

As we prepare for the First-in-the-Nation Presidential Primary and elections, advocacy groups and individuals may reach out to you with recommendations on how to register voters and conduct elections. The Attorney General and the Secretary of State are the official sources of election guidance. Our offices work hard to respond promptly to your questions and concerns. Just as we ask the public to recognize you as a trusted source of information on voter registration and local elections, we ask you to recognize our offices as the trusted source of election guidance.

Some seeking to change how New Hampshire conducts elections are appealing directly to local officials. They may use misleading titles such as “NH Election Official Program Manager.” Others may suggest you:

  • Amend existing election procedures or adopt new ones;
  • Follow their written instructions that are either missing information or contain incorrect information;
  • Fill out forms that look like official forms required by law or recommended by the SOS Office.

Our guidance is based on the state’s election laws. Individuals advocating for changes in our election procedures should contact the State Legislature and seek bills to change the law. Please be cautious when considering recommendations from anyone outside of our office or the Attorney General’s Office.

Voters have an equal right to vote, and candidates have an equal right to seek election in all towns and city wards in New Hampshire. Adopting and following uniform election procedures helps ensure our elections are equal. Uniform procedures and transparency help instill voter confidence.

Please feel free to contact me or a member of my staff anytime you have a question. I value your trust and welcome recommendations for enhancing New Hampshire elections. We rely on you as the first line of defense for our elections. Thank you for your hard work and all you do for New Hampshire’s voters.

New Hampshire will hold the First-in-the-Nation Primary!

Sincerely,

Secreta1y of State

…and Scanlon admitted that they haven’t been following the Law – which he said during the same Anne Edwards hearing.

 

 

If Dan Richard had never brought this issue up (as Edwards has been involved in Election Law as part of the AG’s office, so it was valid to say in testimony in her hearing), I doubt that this email would have ever gone out.

It also raises questions in my mind now as to what “misinformation” they are talking about.

Why didn’t Scanlan DIRECTLY address the “how to handle absentee ballots” issue he raised? I would have assumed that would have been part of that message!  Instead, that email, in my mind, is rather vague in nature, given that Scanlan and Formella are “nuancing detail.”  Have they not read the polls stating that the Public’s level of Trust in institutions, especially Governmental ones, is dropping like the proverbial rock?

After all, we all have had a healthy dose from “health experts” to “do this and not do that” during the Pandemic (even in the late stages), only to start seeing those “in charge” starting to admit that those “conspiracy nutcases” (although never specifically mentioning names) were, in many cases, right. Like with the face diapers that were of no use at all. That the mRNA shots (not vaccines) were not tested thoroughly, had bad side effects for some, stopped the J&J vaccine, and now are admitting to a whole raft of other things that contradicted what they said was “health gospel”.

I called Dan and he offered up this tidbit of Law from another Supreme Court decision – emphasis mine:

New Hampshire common law has been established, “From these, and similar circumstances, therefore, it has happened, that questions of this nature have not always been examined with that coolness, and patience, which their importance deserved; and that since the adoption of our constitutions, courts of justice, as well as legislative bodies, have furnished [201] some complaints, that their jurisdiction has been violated, when those complaints were not founded upon sound principles or respectable precedents.

Conscious of the force of these considerations, we have in the present cause, experienced considerable embarrassment: but duty has compelled us to act, and it hardly need be repeated, that we have attempted to divest ourselves of every feeling, except an earnest desire to perform what duty dictated.” It must be admitted that courts ought to decide, according “to the laws of the land,” all cases, which are submitted to their examination. To do this, however, we must examine those laws. (2) Federalist, No. 78; [Dash v. Van Kleeck,] 7 Johns. 494 [, 5 Am. Dec. 291]; 3 Cook 7; 6 Bac. Stat.H. The constitution is one of them, and “is in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as a fundamental law.” (3) Federalist, No. 78. It was created by the people, who in our republics, are “the supreme power,” (4) Bill of Rights, art. 8, and, it being the expression of their will, their agents, as are all the branches of government, (5) Bill of Rights, art. 8, can perform no act which, if contrary to that will, should be deemed lawful.

To deny this, would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of power may do, ‘not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.’

Their oaths of office too, prohibit, and the constitution itself, in express terms, prohibits the legislature from making “laws repugnant or contrary to the constitution.” If then there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the constitution and a statute, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought of course to be preferred: in other words,” “the intention of the people ought to be preferred to the intention of their agents.” [55] “Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes, that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the constitution, the judges [202] ought to be governed by the latter, rather than the former.

They ought to regulate their decision by the fundamental laws, rather than by those, which are not fundamental. Our Confidence, also, in the liberality of the legislature is such, that when, through inadvertence of mistake, they passed a unauthorized act, we believe that, should the unpleasant task of adjudging it void devolve upon us, they would think the task is performed only from a conviction that the act is in the clearest manner unconstitutional, and the right and duty so to pronounce it are both unquestionable… Merrill v Sherburne 1 N.H. 199

It’s one thing to be told wrong things. It is totally different when we now know “the rest of the story” – then it becomes gaslighting, especially when the gaslighting is done to divert us all from fundamental Law (which can be inconvenient, pesky, troublesome, and a roadblock to their intentions).

Again, Article 8 of our NH Constitution requires the responsibility of us all to hold our elected and appointed leaders accountable to us – and not us to them (though they seem to be trying hard to flip that relationship).

 

Author

  • Skip

    Co-founder of GraniteGrok, my concern is around Individual Liberty and Freedom and how the Government is taking that away. As an evangelical Christian and Conservative with small "L" libertarian leanings, my fight is with Progressives forcing a collectivized, secular humanistic future upon us. As a TEA Party activist, citizen journalist, and pundit!, my goal is to use the New Media to advance the radical notions of America's Founders back into our culture.

Share to...