In January, the New Hampshire Republican State Committee, at its annual meeting, passed a resolution by majority vote to close the Republican primary. Only registered Republicans would be able to pick their nominees. So why, then, is it not closed?
The pat answer, the one you’ll get from leadership, is that the wording in the resolution violated state law, but after reading an exchange between an inquisitive voter and the New Hampshire Secretary of State, that answer is, at best misleading, and, at worst, a bald-faced lie. While ‘The Party” claims that a resolution is non-binding and that a By-Law change is required, the secretary of State – unless I misunderstand the plain language he uses – need only receive a letter from the party Chairman (in writing) to close the primary.
10/4/2023
Hi xxxxxxx,
By statute the party chair is to notify the Secretary of State in writing if there is a change regarding which voters can participate in a party primary. I have not received any written communication in that regard.
[AND, in a follow up response, to question by the same curious voter regarding the deadline for notification]
…a political party can notify me in writing up until close of business next Tuesday.
Dave
By “next Tuesday,” Secretary of State Scanlan means October tenth.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the State does not appear to care what the mechanism of rule change is, only that the Party tells him in writing what it requires by October tenth, end of day.
So, does the language conflict with state statute? Before the response above, the curious voter asked for the Statute, which SoS Scanlan promptly provided.
Voting Procedure
Section 659:14
659:14 Special Provisions for State and Presidential Primary Elections. –
I. A person desiring to vote at a state or presidential primary election shall, at the time of announcing the person’s name, also announce the name of the party to which the person belongs or whether the person is registered as an undeclared voter. If the person’s party membership has been registered before, the person shall be given only the ballot of the party with which the person is registered, unless the person desires to vote the ballot of a party not having official existence at the time the person’s party membership was previously registered, in which case the person may vote the ballot of such a party in the state primary election immediately following the political organization’s official existence as a party, and not in any subsequent state primary election. A person may also vote the ballot of such a party in the presidential primary election only if the presidential primary election precedes the state primary election to be held in that same year. If the rules of a party permit a person who is registered as an undeclared voter to vote in the party’s primary, any person desiring to vote in that party’s primary shall also announce the name of that party at the time of announcing the person’s name. No person shall be permitted to vote in any more than one party primary during any primary election.
II. The secretary of State shall include on the voter instruction cards required by RSA 658:28 whether a party rule has been adopted which permits a person who is registered as an undeclared voter to vote in the party’s primary. The party chairman shall notify the secretary of State in writing prior to the filing period for state offices whether the party has adopted such a rule. This rule shall not be changed or rescinded by a party until the results of the primary have been announced, and any change or rescission shall be mailed to the secretary of State by the party chairman.
As you can see, nothing there appears to conflict with anything other than the lack of notification by the Party to the Secretary of State, as observed in the response from the curious voter.
Thank you for providing me the RSA relative to party primary rules. I am not finding anything where the resolution that was voted on and passed by the state committee members present at the January meeting violates any provision of that RSA. Are you able to help me understand the rationale here?
You have already read the Secretary of State’s response. “…the party chair is to notify the Secretary of State in writing if there is a change regarding which voters can participate in a party primary. I have not received any written communication in that regard.”
Why has that not then happened?
There is more.
The original sponsor of the change, Karen Testerman, just sent a letter to NHGOP Chairman Chris Ager, seeking to address these contradictions.
As you know, at the 2023 annual meeting of the NHGOP held on January 28, 2023, the attached resolution closing the primaries to all but registered Republicans was formally adopted by the body consisting of the required quorum of members of the NHGOP state committee.
As you must also know, there is absolutely no distinction between a “Resolution” and a “By-Law” provision contained in the governing documents of the NHGOP.
Thus, it was your duty under the provisions of NH RSA 669:14-II to give written notice to the NH Secretary of State of the adoption of this resolution, but it is understood that you have not done so.
Additionally, the Bylaw Committee contacted me via phone stating that the amendment submitted should be a resolution. Further they requested that I withdraw the bylaw amendment. Now in your correspondence with others you are stating that this resolution should be a bylaw. I am confused as to which process is correct.
Further, it is my understanding that there has not been any “rule” adopted by the NHGOP that would permit “a person who is registered as an undeclared voter to vote in the party’s primary” as described in RSA 669:14-II.
Thus, this is a formal demand that you comply with your duties a chairman of the NHGOP and send formal written notice to the NH Secretary of State of the adoption of the attached resolution by which the party primaries of the NHGOP must be closed and reaffirm that the NHGOP has never adopted any rule that would permit a person who is registered as an undeclared voter to vote in the party’s primary.
Very truly yours,
If there is no legal issue in the Secretary of State’s mind, what are we waiting for?
The deadline for submitting the change in writing fast approaches, and the only thing that appears to be standing between New Hampshire Republicans and a closed primary – for which its state committee voted – is a brief written message, making it so.
What, exactly, is the problem?