Note: If you prefer to listen, a video of this testimony is available below.
Good afternoon, chairman and honorable members of this committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify here before you today. My name is Daniel Richard. I am a Citizen of New Hampshire and an inhabitant of Auburn, NH.
I am grateful for the invitation and opportunity to share with all of you my 10+ years of study and knowledge of these very important election law issues now before this subcommittee and the Election Law Committee as a whole. I want to share with this committee my personal story as an example of some of the relevant election issues we are here to talk about today.
The election issues before us today should be non-partisan as they affect all of us. Full disclosure: I’m a registered Republican, and I vote Republican, but unfortunately, all the named defendants in my election law case are Republicans because they failed to obey their oath by refusing to follow the Constitution. This does not make me very popular with the Republican Party leadership of the past. The sad reality is that everyone in government today did not create the problems we’re here to discuss, but rather, we inherited these election changes by design when all the previous election laws were codified 46 years ago in 1979 under the previous Secretary of State Bill Gardner. That act of codifying 195 years of N.H. election law by a single act is how our current election statutes came to be, along with other changes since.
The defendants are accused of conspiring to cover up the defects in election law changes from the 1970s, after being lawfully given notice under part I article 32, by way of remonstrance. I argue that the defendants having sworn an oath to protect my rights and refused to address my grievances leaving me no other choice but to seek relief in the courts of law in this state. Therefore, I filed a complaint which now awaits the next step in the trial court. All named defendants had the chance to address these issues over the last 5 years and chose not to, starting with Secretary of State David Scanlon, Governor Chris Sununu, Attorney General John Formella, Speaker of the House Sherman Packard, President of the Senate Chuck Morse, and my local election officials.
Needless to say, today I’m very pleased to finally have the opportunity to address a legislative committee to redress these election law grievances provided for by part I, art. 32. Const. of N.H.
MY BACKROUND
I was born outside the United States, two hundred miles from here in Canada. My parents applied for and we’re granted visas thereby establishing their legal status as a lawful resident alien, which allowed my parents to reside permanently in New Hampshire as a (permanent resident legal alien) Green card holder. My parents settled in Manchester where I grew up, and under federal law I met the conditions which citizenship was automatically qualified for through my naturalized parents; 8 U.S Code 1431(a)1.2.3.
I was naturalized in 1981, at the Hillsborough County Superior Court, in Manchester, N.H., under state and federal immigration laws that run parallel to each other under state and federal jurisdiction. My naturalization certification defines me as a citizen of the United States of America, establishing my legal status as a Citizen of the State of New Hampshire as defined by Section 1 of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
I’m a professional police dog trainer and former canine manager for the United States Department of Energy, Strategic Petroleum Reserves. As a practical matter I began my study of law while training police officers and their dogs. I had to learn all their rules, regulations and laws governing use and deployment of police dogs for agencies of all kinds, from local county state or federal agencies, this taught me a lot about practical application and understanding of laws and government function.
I have always had an interest in American history as a hobby. I have spent the last 10 years of my Constitutional Studies focused on State history of our State Constitution and our form government created by it. I have read all of the N.H. election laws going back to 1775, and most importantly, how the State and Federal Constitutions and the statutes written pursuant thereof work together on the issues of voting and immigration.
Several years ago, former Secretary of State Bill Gardner paid me a compliment in a meeting in his office with several members of the legislature when he told the representatives in attendance that he believed that I know more about the Constitution and our election laws, than of the lawyers or judges in the state. He then invited me to teach a constitutional law class for him and his legal team on the history and evolution of our election laws, which we will be talking about today, like state citizenship. In attendance was Asst. A.G. Bud Fitch, Asst. Secretary of State David Scanlon and other members of the legislature.
I have argued two cases before the New Hampshire Supreme Court, the first case being the right to petition or remonstrate before the legislature for redress of grievances, and the second case is the election law case we’ll discuss later which has been remanded back to the trial court after the Supreme Court affirmed my standing arguments on my equal protection claims.
First case on April 21, 2021, https://vimeo.com/1000555105
The second case on November 29, 2023, https://vimeo.com/1000562113
Proposed Election Legislation
now before the Election Law Committee
I am here to share with you the importance of the historical and legal definitions of both voting rights and naturalization laws of the State of N.H. The following is the foundation or standard of review that I will use to render my opinions about any of the election law or naturalization questions you may pose to me. Any of my opinions on proposed legislation will be mindful of the that fact that legislation must be written in such a way as to survive judicial scrutiny, by ensuring that new legislation is not repugnant or contrary to the constitution.
Whether the election laws and immigration laws were changed by mistake or design, it should not affect this committee’s ability to recommend solutions to the legislature, which is still constitutionally authorized to fix these issues under Part I [Art.] 29. [Suspension of Laws by Legislature Only.] The power of suspending the laws, or the execution of them, ought never to be exercised but by the Legislature, or by authority derived therefrom, to be exercised in such particular cases only as the Legislature shall expressly provide for. June 2, 1784, because whatever the legislative solution is, it must still be in harmony with Part II, art. 90 of the Const. of N.H. the common law which continues as long as new legislation is not contrary or repugnant to the Const. of N.H. and the statutes written pursuant thereof. Part II, art. 90:
[Art.] 90. [Existing Laws Continued if Not Repugnant.] All the laws which have heretofore been adopted, used, and approved, in the Province, colony, or State of New Hampshire, and usually practiced on in the Courts of Law, shall remain and be in full force, until altered and repealed by the Legislature; such parts thereof only excepted, as are repugnant to the rights and liberties contained in this Constitution: Provided that nothing herein contained, when compared with the twenty-third article in the Bill of Rights, shall be construed to affect the laws already made respecting the persons, or estates of absentees.
June 2, 1784.
“That clause, which confers upon the “general court” the authority “to make laws,” provides at the same time, that they must not be “repugnant or contrary to the constitution.” Merrill v Sherburne 1 N.H. 199. (1818).
Affidavit issue
I wish to begin with the misleading testimony of Secretary of State David Scanlon a few weeks ago on HB608FN to clarify the definition of a properly executed affidavit and its usage and custom relative to absentee voting. Some of Secretary Scanlon’s answers to the Committee are quite concerning. For the record I testified first with Representative Panek, the sponsor of the bill, followed by Secretary Scanlon testimony
The following is Secretary Scanlon’s testimony before all of you at the Election Law Committee hearing on Feb 4, 2025, which affirms my arguments in part, is misleading in part, and dishonest in part, putting it nicely. This Committee needs to know what Secretary Scanlon withheld from the full Committee during his testimony in that hearing, when the Secretary was asked a great question by Rep. Lane “what do you consider then to be an affidavit?” Let’s review his testimony.
There are Seven relevant issues to this election law case regarding Secretary Scanlon’s public testimony on the affidavit questions (admissions of fact).
- The Secretary testimony addresses the proposed legislative amendment to the affidavit requirement RSA 659:50 I (b), the proper execution of an affidavit, a legislative solution to the loop hole in the law.
- The Secretary testified that the current RSA 657:7 does not contain the language directing the S.O.S. to print a notary certificate on the return envelope.
- The Secretary would go on to affirm in his testimony that original intent of the legislature regarding the absentee voting procedure and the legal definition of a properly executed affidavit as part of the absentee voting process.
- Secretary Scanlon affirms the Plaintiff arguments that the state election laws were recodified in 1979 (436:1). The aforesaid changes include most of the N.H. election statutes now in question before this Court.
- That he, the S.O.S. has “directions” on the language that shall appear on the envelope.
- There is now Conflict of interest between the Secretary of State Scanlon and Attorney General Formella, and the Election Law Committee needs to get to the bottom of it
- Secretary Scanlon is asked directly by Rep. Lane of the election law committee, “What do you consider then to be an affidavit?”.
- Secretary Scanlon testimony is also relevant because of conflicting testimony between the S.O.S. and the A.G. to further a conspiracy to continue their interference with the State and Federal election process.
“Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the committee im Secretary of State David Scanlon and I understand it’s been a really Long day for you so I’ll try and be as brief as I can on this what the bill calls for if you look at the bill itself is responsibility of the moderator when processing the absentee pallets to make sure certain things are correct when they do that that’s RSA 659:50 and this deals with Roman numeral I (b) so if you look at the statute completely just says the moderator supposed to do his duty this and it says if the name of the voter is on the checklist and the affidavit appears to be properly executed and the signature on the affidavit appears to be executed by the same person then the absentee ballot gets processed what this bill does it adds the language when the moderator is looking at this, if the affidavit on the envelope fully executed legal affidavit that is witnessed and signed by a notary election officer or any other person authorize my law to administer oaths now if that’s the policy that the legislature wants that’s one thing and I’m not gonna take an opinion on that today but I am trying to point out with this language is that this will cause mass confusion because the language that we need to be looking at or what is contained on the so-called affidavit envelope is in RSA 657: 7 and that language says the Secretary of State shall put the following language on the affidavit envelope there is no provision in the statute that says that they’re supposed to be a place for an opportunity on there for a notary or some other person to take the oath of office to do that, so if that were added then this language that is being proposed to this might be appropriate but it’s at this point I don’t believe it is, so the other thing that I’d like to point out is absentee balloting really started taking place in the constitution statutorily in the area of the 1940s and in 1943 and the law book and the election laws at that time there was an opportunity for the voter to sign the statement that they were where they say they are and as Mr. Richard said have a witness watch them not mark the ballot but take the marked ballot ah done in private put it in the envelope which contain the affidavit on it and then sign a witness oath that they did in fact observe the voter following through that process.
in 1955 the law was changed to remove that provision and in that time that statement on the affidavit envelope was not affidavit it was called the certificate and that language as continued up until the legislature started addressing the absentee Ballot laws within the last 10 years or so, 1979 was when the legislature recodified a lot of the election statutes but those provisions that I mentioned before kinda carried beyond that and so today language has changed recently but it calls the affidavit the envelope with the statement on it and affidavit envelope but I believe it still calls the statement that is on their certificate, bottom line is the secretary of state has directions on the language that shall appear on the affidavit that’s what we do and that’s what the moderators are supposed to be watching for when they processed the absentee ballot and with that I would be happy to answer any questions”
Chair Ross Berry: Questions from the committee.
Representative Lane: “um what do you consider then to be an affidavit?”
Secretary Scanlon: “Well, I think in this case the affidavit is what the legislature calls it um but um sure that there is a legal definition of what a affidavit constitutes and I think Mr. Richard is well schooled in that, but, but I think the legislature can say something and mean something else, the bottom line, maybe I should rephrase that? I think in this case um, um it was just loosely throwing words around what they actually mean I will leave it at that.”
Item 2. My law suit and the Federal issues raised in my case and their relevance to this hearing. The following is the NH Supreme Court summary on my standing.
Richard v. Sununu et al.
[¶20] The plaintiff alleges in his complaint that “[t]he Defendants’ sanctioning of the discretionary use of voting machines [s] at the local level” violates the equal protection clause of Part I, Article 1 of the State Constitution and the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution by authorizing “use of programmable, Open source, electronic vote counting machines in some towns, cities, or other political subdivision[s] of the State or not.” He argues that the State’s action “set up an unequal election process across the state” wherein “103 communities in the State hand count, while at [the] same time permitting voting machine counts in 135 communities.” According to the plaintiff, this disparity between the methods of counting votes and the “non-verifiability” of ballots submitted by electronic voting machine “at the time of counting and later auditing (re-counts) of the validity of each ballot/vote” produced “an unreliable outcome and hidden opportunity to manipulate computer-counted data,” thereby depriving him of a lawful count of the ballots and diluting his vote.
[¶21] applying our standard to review, based upon the alleged facts, we determine that the plaintiff has sufficiently demonstrated his right to claim relief and has therefore demonstrated standing as to his equal protection claim set forth in Count II. See Avery, 173 N.H. at 736-37; see also Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 205-06 (1962) (noting that voters have standing to bring equal protection challenges to complain a vote dilusion and observing that “[m]any of the cases have assumed rather than articulated the premise and deciding the merits of similar claims”). Because the trial court did not address the plaintiff equal protection claim, we remand for further proceedings consistent with this decision in doing so we expressed no opinion on the merits of the plaintiff claim.
The Standing Doctrines Explained
- Injury in fact: They suffered (or will suffer) a concrete injury.
- Causation: The alleged injury is “fairly traceable to the challenged conduct.”
- Redressability: The court can redress the alleged injury if it grants the plaintiff’s requested relief.
State Citizen vs. citizen of the United States
Item 3. The question of citizenship, Citizen of the State of New Hampshire vs. citizen of the United States, what is the difference, and how does it affect voting rights, and immigration (naturalization) rights?
“The right or privilege of voting is one arising under the constitution of the state, and not under the constitution of the United States.” The qualifications are different in the different states. Citizenship, age, sex, residence, are variously required in the different states, or may be so. If the right belongs to any particular person, it is because such person is entitled to it by the laws of the state where he offers to exercise it, and not because of citizenship of the United States.” UNITED STATES V. ANTHONY. June 18, 1873.
The confusion for most people begins with wrong understand of the 14th Amendment which states that:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”
And Article 4, Section 2. Of the Const. of the United States provides that:
“The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.” UNITED STATES V. ANTHONY. This right to travel and its protection etc. afforded to citizens of the several states does include the right of suffrage, under the State and U.S. Constitutions.
- Inhabitant defined Const. of N.H.
- Part II, art. 30
- This court re-affirmed the definition of the word inhabitant in the following Opinion of the Justices 83 N.H. 589, 592 (N.H.1927)
- Part II, article 30: “Every person, qualified as the constitution provides, shall be considered an inhabitant for the purpose of electing and being elected into any office.
- “Ib., art.30.Opinion of the Justices, 83 N.H. 589, 592 (N.H.1927).
- “The meaning of these provisions is entirely clear. The right of suffrage is made the general test of the right to hold elective office.” Opinion of the Justices, 83.H.589, 592 (N.H. 1927)
- “It being provided that the qualifications prescribed in the constitution should be the test for office-holding capacity,” Opinion of the Justices, 83 N.H. 589, 592(N.H. 1927)
- “By the bill of rights, art. 11, and the constitution of New Hampshire, pt. II, arts. 28, 30, the rights of electing to office and being elected being equal, save for certain specific constitutional limitations, whatever constitutional amendments limit or enlarge the right to vote have the same effect upon the eligibility to elective office.” Opinion of the Justices, 83 N.H.589 (N.H. 1927),“rights to elect and be elected are equal; Fischer v. Governor, 145 N.H.28, 39 (N.H.2000)”
- The Const. of N.H. in 1784 provided the following constitutional qualifications for voters by using the word inhabitant, which must be read in light of Baines v. N.H. Senate, 152 N.H. at 133
- 1) Part I, art. XI, every inhabitant of the State having the proper qualification.
2) Part I, art XII, every inhabitant, being a Tax payer, is “bound to contribute his share in the expense of such protection”
3) Part II, Must be a Male who possess town privileges.
4) Part II, must be 21 years of age.
5) Part II, must pay a poll tax.
6) Part II, must vote in the town or parish wherein he dwells
7) Part II, defines inhabitant and the fact that constitution defines every person qualified to vote
8) Part II, defines that, the inhabitants of plantations and places unincorporated, are qualified as this constitution provides.
9) Part II, Senators must be of the protestant religion,
10) Part II, Senators must be seized of a freehold estate in his own right, of the value of two hundred pounds, lying within this State
11) Part II, Senators must be thirty years old
12) Part II, Senators must have been an inhabitant for the past seven years.
13) Part II, persons qualified to vote in the election of senators, shall be entitled to vote with in the town district, parish, or place where they dwell, in the choice of representatives.
14) Part II, House Representatives shall have been an inhabitant of this State, shall have an estate within the town, parish or place which he may have chosen to represent, of the value of one hundred pounds, one half of which to be a free-hold whereof he is seized in his own right; shall be at the time of his election, an inhabitant of the town parish, or place he may be chosen to represent;
15) Part II, shall be of the protestant religion
16) Part II, Governor must be an inhabitant for 7 years.
17) Part II, Governor must be 30 years old.
18) Part II, Governor must have an estate of the value of five hundred pounds of which shall consist of a free-hold in his own right within the State;
19) Part II, Governor must be of the protestant religion.
HOW TO BECOME A STATE CITIZEN IN 1808
Laws of New Hampshire
[CHAPTER 49.]
State of | New Hampshire. \ An Act to determin who shall be legal Voters in town meetings, and to secure to the inhabitants of this State their rights of suffrage.
[Approved December 21, 1808. Original Acts, vol. 20, p. 49; recorded Acts, vol. 17, p. 398. Session Laws, November, 1808, p. 31. Repealed by act of June 28, 1809, id., June, 1809, p. 25.]
Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened. That every male inhabitant of each town and parish with town privileges, and places unincorporated in this State, (being a natural born or naturalized citizen of the United States) of twenty-one years of age and upwards, excepting paupers and persons excused from paying taxes at their own request, shall have a right, at the annual and other meetings of the inhabitants of said towns and parishes, to vote in the town or parish wherein he dwells and hath his home; — provided however, That no person shall be considered an inhabitant in any town or parish in this State for the purpose of voting, unless he has resided in such place six months, or has become a free-holder.
Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That no person, not being a citizen of this State or of the United States, shall be entitled to vote at any town meeting for the choice of State, County or town officers, unless he shall have resided within this State two years and shall have made oath before some Justice of the Peace, or other person authorized to administer oaths — That he will bear faith and true allegiance to the State of New Hampshire, and to the United States, and will support the Constitutions thereof. Provided however, That no person, not a citizen of this State or of the United States, shall be considered qualified to fill any County or State office.
Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That if any person shall threaten another with harm, thereby to induce him to vote according to the wishes of such person so threatening, or shall either by himself or any other person, purchase a vote, by paying any person for voting; such offender shall be liable, on complaint and conviction before any Justice of the Peace, to pay for each offence a fine not exceeding ten dollars and costs of prosecution.
Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That no vote shall be received and counted, on the back of which is written or otherwise marked any character or sign, whereby to distinguish the vote or voter.
Sec. 5. And be it further enacted, That during the day on which a town meeting shall be held, no inhabitant of any town or parish in this State, who is entitled to vote therein, shall be liable to any arrest on any civil process.
Sec. 6. And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of the town Clerk in each town to provide a suitable box, for the purpose of receiving ballots, which box shall have a hole cut in the lid thereof through which the votes shall be passed by the voters, and no ballot shall on any occasion be received or counted unless put into said box in such manner as to make it evident to the Moderator and Selectmen, that there is but one ballot put in at a time. Provided however, That nothing in this act shall be construed to authorise or allow any Moderator or Selectman so to examine any ballot as to discover or expose the name or names of any person or persons voted for on said ballot.
Sec. 7. And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of the moderator in all meetings for the choice of State and County officers to declare, in public, at the close of the poll, the state of the vote or votes: and no vote shall be received or counted after the state of the vote or votes hath been declared as aforesaid.
Sec. 8. And be it further enacted, That the return of votes for any County or State officer, shall be made out and be signed by the Selectmen attending, and by the Town-Clerk, and shall be in the form following: —
At a town meeting legally notified and holden in the town of on the day of in the year the following votes were given in — (then fill up the blank by an accurate statement of the votes) which votes have been declared in open town meeting, and we now certify the foregoing to be a correct return.
U.S. Code: Title 8 – ALIENS AND NATIONALITY
8 U.S. Code § 1101 – Definitions
(23) The term “naturalization” means the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.
Constitution of New Hampshire
Part I, Article 11.
All elections ought to be free, and every inhabitant of the State having the proper qualifications, has equal right to elect, and be elected into office. June 2 1784.
[Art.] 11. [Elections and Elective Franchises.] All elections are to be free, and every inhabitant of the state of 18 years of age and upwards shall have an equal right to vote in any election. Every person shall be considered an inhabitant for the purposes of voting in the town, ward, or unincorporated place where he has his domicile. No person shall have the right to vote under the constitution of this state who has been convicted of treason, bribery or any willful violation of the election laws of this state or of the United States; but the supreme court may, on notice to the attorney general, restore the privilege to vote to any person who may have forfeited it by conviction of such offenses. The general court shall provide by law for voting by qualified voters who at the time of the biennial or state elections, or of the primary elections therefor, or of city elections, or of town elections by official ballot, are absent from the city or town of which they are inhabitants, or who by reason of physical disability are unable to vote in person, in the choice of any officer or officers to be elected or upon any question submitted at such election. Voting registration and polling places shall be easily accessible to all persons including disabled and elderly persons who are otherwise qualified to vote in the choice of any officer or officers to be elected or upon any question submitted at such election. The right to vote shall not be denied to any person because of the non-payment of any tax. Every inhabitant of the state, having the proper qualifications, has equal right to be elected into office.
June 2, 1784
The Constitution of the United States defines the federal qualification clause and the federal elections clause:
Article I, Section 2.
The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.
No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.
Article I, Section 4.
The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.
52 U.S. Code § 10502 – Residence requirements for voting (c)Prohibition of denial of right to vote because of durational residency requirement or absentee balloting
No citizen of the United States who is otherwise qualified to vote in any election for President and Vice President shall be denied the right to vote for electors for the failure of such citizen to comply with any durational residency requirement of such State or political subdivision; nor shall any citizen of the United States be denied the right to vote for electors for President and Vice President, or for President and Vice President, in such election because of the failure of such citizen to be physically present in such State or political subdivision at the time of such election, if such citizen shall have complied with the requirements prescribed by the law of such State or political subdivision providing for the casting of absentee ballots in such election.
52 U.S. Code § 10101 – Voting rights
(2)No person acting under color of law shall—
(A) in determining whether any individual is qualified under State law or laws to vote in any election, apply any standard, practice, or procedure different from the standards, practices, or procedures applied under such law or laws to other individuals within the same county, parish, or similar political subdivision who have been found by State officials to be qualified to vote;
52 U.S. Code § 20511 – Criminal penalties
(2)knowingly and willfully deprives, defrauds, or attempts to deprive or defraud the residents of a State of a fair and impartially conducted election process, by—
(A) the procurement or submission of voter registration applications that are known by the person to be materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent under the laws of the State in which the election is held; or
(B) the procurement, casting, or tabulation of ballots that are known by the person to be materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent under the laws of the State in which the election is held,
