Candidate Paula Johnson had her day in court (Paula Johnson vs. City of Nashua). Paula sued the City for procedure and process violations over the handling of a school board election recount.
Thanks to Julie Smith of Nashua, you can get an overview of that day in court here as a primer.
All four complaints in Paula’s petition were ultimately acknowledged, some in greater detail than others: procedure not followed, chain of custody for ballot storage breached, equal protection clause violated, and incorrect handling/processing of absentee ballots.
It was a lot worse than that. One source at the recount told me, “I just watched them steal an election before my eyes.”
Paula did not sue on the grounds the recount produced the wrong result; she went after the City for violating procedure (which, if my source is correct, sounds like it might be an excellent way to steal an election). The judge has seen evidence and heard testimony. While we wait for whatever comes next, another issue is the availability of the written results of the recount. They were sealed with the ballots (another procedural issue), and much like the effort to ensure no one in the City can be held responsible for anything, the answer to the question of how those are retrieved was handed off faster than a plane full of illegals landing on Martha’s Vineyard.
If you ply the actors in this absurd play, they will tell you that City elections are different. Nashua City School board elections are different again. Another round-robin case of ‘not it’ until Julie eventually got an answer from Secretary of State Scanlan, who responded that the manner of extraction for said results from sealed boxes of ballots falls under RSA 669:95 and 659:75, included here.
669:25 Conduct. – In towns which have adopted an official ballot system, the town election shall be conducted in the same manner as a state general election as provided in RSA 658 and 659, except that RSA 659:77, III-V and 659:78 shall not apply, and except that all duties required to be performed by the secretary of state under those chapters shall be performed by the town clerk, and except that no copy of marked or unmarked checklists need be forwarded to the state archives or federal district court as provided in RSA 659:102. Polling hours for a town meeting or election shall be set by the selectmen or by a vote of the town.
659:75 Forwarding; Retaining Copies of Return. –
One copy of the election return shall be forwarded by the town or ward clerk to the secretary of state in both paper and electronic form no later than 8:00 a.m. on the day following a state election unless the secretary of state orders them sooner. The other shall be kept by the town or city clerk in accordance with RSA 33-A:3-a and shall be open to public inspection at reasonable times. If an official state election return is sealed along with the ballots, the clerk having custody of the sealed ballots shall, at the request of the secretary of state, and in the presence of a state election official, unseal the ballots and retrieve the election return. The ballots shall be immediately resealed and the election return shall be delivered to the secretary of state by the election official.
659:75 suggests that Secretary of State Scanlan can ask for them unless, per 669:95, “duties required to be performed by the secretary of state under those chapters shall be performed by the town clerk.” In that case, the Nashua City Clerk can do it and should. Someone should. Immediately. After all – if there’s nothing there, then the people have a right to see that at any reasonable time.
I’m sure Nashua’s brightest legal minds, having dedicated most of their energy toward the obstruction of public documents, will find cause to prevent this despite the law and the precise language. It’s as if that was their default process. Obstruct. Obscure. Defer. Deny. It is a public document. There is a legal remedy to retrieve it. But it’s easier to make them sue you because they might not be able to afford it, and then you don’t have to do anything.
If I recall correctly, a judge has already told Nashua that it must provide remedial Right to Know training for City employees (although I might have them confused with Londonderry). If true, perhaps someone needs to file a 91A request for then that’s scheduled to occur. If not, and the City continues to drag its feet and the Sec. of State can’t engage them on this, the City must be waiting for someone to sue them again.
One more note. Perhaps RSA 91a needs another section to address serial abusers like the City of Nashua. The current remedy reads like this.
IV. If the court finds that an officer, employee, or other official of a public body or public agency has violated any provision of this chapter in bad faith, the court shall impose against such person a civil penalty of not less than $250 and not more than $2,000. Upon such finding, such person or persons may also be required to reimburse the public body or public agency for any attorney’s fees or costs it paid pursuant to paragraph I. If the person is an officer, employee, or official of the state or of an agency or body of the state, the penalty shall be deposited in the general fund. If the person is an officer, employee, or official of a political subdivision of the state or of an agency or body of a political subdivision of the state, the penalty shall be payable to the political subdivision.
It is either not working or the courts are not using it.
