The “security of a completed ballot” soap opera in New Hampshire has added a new chapter. The New Hampshire Secretary of State’s office has responded to a Right to Know request regarding tamper-proof tape that doesn’t prevent tampering.
If you missed earlier installments, activists discovered that neither the procedure for taping up boxes of completed ballots for storage nor the tape meant to provide proof of tampering worked. The procedure prohibited the tape from doing its job, which, after testing, explains the procedure; the tape doesn’t leave tamper evidence on the carton. Put another way, completed New Hampshire ballots have not been secured, perhaps ever. Tampering has always been an option, and no one would know, which means your elections are insecure and the results suspect.
Efforts by activists to notify the Secretary of State of the suspected issue produced a message to clerks telling them to continue following the procedure as written, and they would look at the problem after the primary (which was Tuesday, Sept. 10th). Activists responded to this milquetoast move by emailing the town clerks to ask them to do what they could to ensure ballot integrity to avoid challenges, and so ensure voter trust.
As noted above, a Right to Know request was submitted to the Secretary of State’s Office to identify exactly what tape it called for—the tape that failed in their own test. This is confirmed. The State’s tamper-proof tape of record does not prevent tampering. But the RTK produced additional information.
Bud Fitch, who (if I remember correctly) worked for Kelly Ayotte when she was the NH Attorney General – deflecting any concerns about election integrity even back then – and who was part of her US Senate staff, responded as General Counsel and Assistant Secretary of State.
Other than the records being provided the Secretary of State’s Office does not possess “specification for tamper resistant tape supplied by your office . . .“ nor records detailing “testing” of the models of tape considered.
The security of sealed boxes of ballots from an election relies on the local election officials who box and seal the ballots, the seal that documents the contents of a box with the signatures of the election officials who boxed and sealed the contents, the packaging tape used to secure the box, the tamper evident tape, the chain of custody record on the seal when transferred from the selectmen/moderator to the clerk, and the clerks “Sealed Ballot Boxes – Chain of Custody & Storage Log.
What does that mean? The preface to the elections manual clarifies the problem. “The Attorney General’s Office enforces the election laws and serves the Secretary of State as legal
counsel. However, if a local election official is sued, the local election official’s town or city legal
counsel will represent the official. If disagreement exists as to proper procedure, consult with your
jurisdiction’s local legal counsel before acting.“
So, what does that mean? The Secretary of State is NOT in charge of your local election. Moderators and Town Clerks are responsible. Exposure to lawsuits is the responsibility of the Town Attorney, whose job it is to protect the town’s Insurance bondholder, who ends up paying losses on lawsuits. If you follow this to its logical conclusion, local elections answer to bondholders through the town attorney (or something like that).
This doesn’t sound like the democracy they’ve been telling us about, but it does answer one question. If you want completed ballots appropriately secured, you must get your clerk to solve that problem themselves. The elections manual is – as it states – a guideline. They need to obtain and use truly tamper-proof tape (not the SoS recommended stuff, nor can they follow their taping suggestions) and apply it in a way that proves tampering if removed outside the necessity of a recount with witnesses present and the event adequately logged.
The only way to stick that landing is to ensure the town does this or to threaten to sue them if they do not. Absent that, are we meant to hope the bondholders sense enough risk to get the attorney to get the town to use genuine tamper-proof tape?
What the hell sort of Rube Goldbergian election integrity voodoo is that?
