After months of activism and several weeks of reporting, the problem of properly securing completed ballots appeared to make some progress. The New Hampshire Secretary of State’s Office agreed to purchase and provide tamperproof tape that showed evidence of tampering.
It sounds counterintuitive to think we’d been doing it the other way, but it’s true. Activists discovered the problem, investigated it and its solutions, and presented them to the powers that be. They (the powers) agreed to use a better tamperproof tape but with a caveat. They were not going to follow the manufacturer’s recommendations for optimal security—put the tape directly on the carton and nothing else.
Before the change, the state instructed clerks to put clear tape on the box of ballots, then the tamper-proof tape over that, and a label with details about the contents (etc.). Part of the issue with chain of custody is that you could remove the tape and not leave proof of tampering. Anyone with access in Town, during transport, or at any point after an election but before a recount (or other investigation) could meddle without notice, and we’d only (really) have the clerk and the Secretary of State’s word that didn’t happen.
The new procedure is the same as the old one but with different tape, and the Secretary of State’s Office has adamantly refused to do it differently. The clear tape will go down before the new tamper-evident tape. Their excuse is that they tested it on the clear tape, and it left tamper evidence when you peeled it up.
Good for you, but what if someone just removes both tapes together and retapes the box with clear and tamper-proof after doing whatever it is you do while illegally accessing boxes of completed ballots? The only answer I can think of that makes any sense to them is – well, who would do that?
As an affirmation of that notion, the Scanlen Office also watered down the chain of custody reporting. Before this year, additional details were required when completed ballots were picked up and moved. Dates, times, from whom and by whom. The new form removes some of those layers because, and I kid you not, the New Hampshire Secretary of State’s Office presumes that once in their custody, it’s all good.
It is as good as putting tamper-proof tape over clear tape that can be removed without showing evidence of tampering.
Yes. That good.
But wait, there’s more. When challenged about the custody document change, the SoS said (paraphrasing), “Well, you can ask the legislature to make a new law to change it back.”
To the best of our knowledge, the SOS changed it on its own, without any direction from the legislature. No law directed them to water down the chain of custody, but they did it anyway.
These are the people in charge of securing election integrity in New Hampshire.
