Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Vote Adjudication topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would require second, bipartisan witness when write‑in votes are adjudicated on electronic displays
Summary
HB 474 would require a second witness from an opposing party (selectman or town clerk) when moderators or clerks adjudicate write‑in votes that appear on ballot‑counting device screens. The New Hampshire Municipal Association opposed the bill, calling the language vague and noting moderators are nonpartisan elected officials.
Representative Claudine Burnham urged passage of HB 474, which would require a second witness when moderators or ballot clerks determine intent for write‑in votes displayed on ballot-counting devices. Burnham said the change would “close the gap” that now allows a moderator to adjudicate intent without a second set of eyes.
The New Hampshire Municipal Association testified in opposition, saying the bill’s language is vague and could be interpreted to require moderators—who are nonpartisan elected officials—to find someone of an “opposing party,” a requirement the association called burdensome and unclear. NHMA said moderators are sworn, trusted public officers and pointed out that party poll watchers currently may observe the process.
Deputy Secretary Erin Hennessey said current training for devices such as the VotingWorks machine instructs officials to perform adjudication in pairs and that moderators may assign the task to clerks or assistants. Hennessey said she would not object to a statutory requirement that write‑in adjudication be performed in pairs but warned against language that politicizes the moderator’s role.
The committee took public testimony and questions; no final vote was recorded at the hearing.
