THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
SUPREME COURT
No. 2025-0297
Daniel Richard
v.
Christopher Sununu et al.
APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR LEAVE OF THE COURT TO FILE A REPLY TO THE STATE OBJECTION TO THE APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR LATE AUTHORTY AND INTERVENING MATTERS
I. INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 21 (3-A), Plaintiff-Appellant Daniel Richard, pro se, submits this Motion for leave of the Court to reply to the state’s objection, to address critical issues raised by the Appellant in his Motion for Late Authority and Intervening Matters (filed October 1, 2025) that the State Defendants’ Objection (filed October 13, 2025) wholly ignores or mischaracterizes. The State Defendants’ objection narrowly focuses on procedural arguments, asserting that the submitted documents constitute improper new evidence, while failing to engage with the substantive legal and factual issues central to Plaintiff’s motion. This Sur-reply highlights these deficiencies and reaffirms the relevance of the new authorities and intervening matters to the appeal.
II. STATE DEFENDANTS’ FAILURE TO ADDRESS SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
- Failure to Address New Legislative Enactments (HB 288 and SB 287).
The State Defendants’ objection does not refute or engage with the Plaintiff’s arguments regarding House Bill 288 and Senate Bill 287, effective September 30, 2025, which amend the absentee ballot application process by introducing notarization and identity verification requirements (Motion at 2-4). These enactments directly relate to the appeal’s core issues concerning the proper execution of affidavits under RSA 659:50(b) and RSA 659:30. By codifying legislative intent to address affidavit-related loopholes without invalidating ballots lacking full verification, these laws support Plaintiff’s claim that Defendants’ prior enforcement of non-statutory standards violated voters’ rights. The State Defendants’ silence on these legislative changes ignores their relevance to the appeal and the ongoing issues of election integrity.
- Failure to Address the Joint Memorandum Directing Destruction of Form “A” Envelopes.
The State Defendants fail to acknowledge or dispute the Plaintiff’s evidence of a joint memorandum instructing election officials to destroy state affidavit envelopes (Form A) from prior elections (Motion at 3, Exhibit C). This directive, issued post-brief filing, suggests an intent to eliminate records critical to verifying affidavit execution under RSA 659:30. The Defendants’ objection does not deny the existence of this memorandum or address its implications for their alleged interference with election processes. This omission is significant, as the destruction of records undermines the ability to audit election outcomes, a key issue in this appeal.
- Failure to Address Mischaracterization of Absentee Ballot Envelopes as Affidavits.
Plaintiff’s motion highlights the Defendants’ continued mischaracterization of absentee ballot envelopes as affidavits, contrary to RSA 659:30’s definition of a properly executed affidavit (Motion at 3). The State Defendants’ objection does not contest this claim or explain why such mischaracterization persists in official communications and manuals. This ongoing conflation undermines statutory requirements and supports Plaintiff’s argument that Defendants have redefined affidavit execution outside legal bounds, warranting judicial scrutiny.
- Failure to Address the Election Law Subcommittee Report.
The State Defendants dismiss the September 15, 2025, House Election Law Subcommittee Report as improper evidence without addressing its substantive findings (Motion at 4-5, Exhibits A and B). The report, a public record, directly addresses affidavit issues pending before this Court, reinforcing Plaintiff’s arguments about legislative intent and the Defendants’ non-compliance with RSA 659:50 and RSA 659:30. By ignoring the report’s relevance, the Defendants evade accountability for their role in perpetuating affidavit-related irregularities.
- Failure to Address Secretary Scanlan’s Testimony and Conflicts of Interest.
The State Defendants do not respond to Plaintiff’s arguments regarding Secretary of State David Scanlan’s February 4, 2025, testimony before the Election Law Committee, which constitutes admissions against interest and highlights conflicts with the Attorney General (Motion at 5-8). Scanlan’s testimony, particularly his response to Representative Lane’s question, “What do you consider then to be an affidavit?” (Motion at 8), reveals inconsistencies in the Defendants’ interpretation of affidavit requirements. The Defendants’ objection sidesteps this testimony and the alleged coordination between state officials to interfere with election processes, as evidenced by their enforcement of a non-statutory election procedure manual.
- Mischaracterization of Plaintiff’s Motion as Solely Evidentiary.
The State Defendants incorrectly frame Plaintiff’s motion as an improper attempt to introduce new evidence, ignoring its primary purpose: to bring new authorities and intervening matters to the Court’s attention under Supreme Court Rule 16(3)(b) (Objection at 2-3). While the motion includes exhibits, these are public records (e.g., legislative reports, testimony, and memoranda) that corroborate the new legal authorities (HB 288, SB 287) and intervening matters (Subcommittee Report, joint memorandum). The Defendants’ objection fails to address the legal significance of these developments, instead relying on a procedural argument to avoid substantive engagement.
III. RELEVANCE TO THE APPEAL.
Contrary to the State Defendants’ assertion that the new authorities do not affect RSA 656:40 to :43 (Objection at 3), Plaintiff’s appeal encompasses broader issues of election integrity, including affidavit execution and state officials’ interference with statutory processes. The new legislative enactments and intervening matters directly relate to these issues, as they clarify the legal standards for affidavit execution and expose ongoing violations by Defendants. The Court may take judicial notice of these public records and legislative changes, as they are relevant to the constitutional and statutory claims raised in the appeal.
IV. CONCLUSION
The State Defendants’ objection fails to engage with the substantive issues raised in Plaintiff’s Motion for Late Authority and Intervening Matters, including new legislative enactments, the joint memorandum, mischaracterization of affidavits, the Election Law Subcommittee Report, and Secretary Scanlan’s testimony. These omissions underscore the Defendants’ attempt to avoid accountability for their actions. Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court take judicial notice of the submitted authorities and matters, deny the State Defendants’ objection, and grant such relief as deemed just, including reversal and remand for further proceedings consistent with statutory law. All attachments included in the Motion for late authorities are hereby incorporated herein by reference.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Daniel Richard
Daniel Richard, pro se
Authors’ opinions are their own and may not represent those of Grok Media, LLC, GraniteGrok.com, its sponsors, readers, authors, or advertisers.
Got Something to Say, We Want to Hear It. Comment or submit Op-Eds to steve@granitegrok.com
