Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Recounts And Verification topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill to allow machine counts at the request of 10 voters draws concerns over standards and delays; committee moves bill ITL
Summary
Senate Bill 104 would allow a pre-tabulation machine verification at the request of 10 voters who cast ballots in an election. Secretarial and municipal testimony flagged gaps in standards, timing and likely delays in reporting results; the committee voted in executive session to recommend ITL (inexpedient to legislate).
Senate Bill 104, sponsored by Sen. Kevin Avard, would allow a performance verification (a machine count) when requested by 10 residents who cast ballots in the election. Avard said he introduced the bill after a constituent asked for a mechanism for municipal residents to prompt additional verification if they had concerns about local tabulators.
Secretary of State David Scanlon opposed the bill as drafted, telling the committee that state statute currently authorizes the Secretary of State to conduct recounts and that uniform standards are required for any recount. "In this bill, there are no standards for how a recount will be conducted at the local level, which would lead me to have concerns about the integrity of the ballots cast in that election," Scanlon said, and he warned that the bill’s 0.2 percent deviation trigger would likely force a hand count of all races on many ballots.
Municipal witnesses described practical barriers and operational consequences. Derry Moderator Dave Nelson and Nashua City Clerk Dan Healy said an on-the-spot verification could extend already-long tabulation nights and require extra trained staff. Healy described an instance where a complex hand count took nine hours for one race and said adding verifications before tabulation would add multiple hours to closing procedures. Derry Town Clerk Tina Guilford told the committee that statutory timeline requirements—she cited a rule requiring results to be posted within 60 minutes of running the last ballot through a machine—make on-the-spot verification infeasible on election night.
Voter advocates and outside groups raised other concerns. Olivia Zink of Open Democracy asked who would pay for hand counts and warned that lengthening returns could affect military and absentee-ballot logistics. Michael O’Brien of America Votes noted the lack of documented cases of absentee-ballot fraud and cautioned against adding procedures that would burden voters or election staff.
In executive session the committee considered SB 104. The transcript records the committee taking action on the bill and moving ITL (Inexpedient to Legislate) for the bill. The committee discussion and witness testimony emphasized three recurring concerns: (1) the bill lacked uniform standards for local recounts or verifications, (2) in practice the proposal would delay tabulation and require significant added staff and time, and (3) the bill’s deviation threshold could unintentionally trigger very large hand counts.
Action: In executive session the committee moved ITL on SB 104 (committee motion recorded in the transcript). The record does not show a roll-call vote with named tallies in the transcript excerpt; the motion to place SB 104 ITL was recorded as passing.
