Committee hears debate over bill letting 100 voters trigger hand recounts in municipalities using counting machines

Senator Kevin Avard introduced Senate Bill 44, which would allow a hand recount of ballots in a municipality that uses ballot-counting machines upon the written request of 100 registered voters who voted in that election.

The bill prompted a lengthy hearing with sharply divided testimony. Secretary of State David Scanlon and multiple municipal clerks and civic groups opposed the measure, warning it would create competing recount authorities, lack uniform procedures, impose costs and pose timing problems for ballot preparation and certification. Supporters said the measure would improve transparency and give citizens a direct check on machine counts.

“Cities and towns are granted the authority of determining whether or not they wanna use a ballot counting device,” said David Scanlon, Secretary of State. He told the committee SB 44 would effectively give cities and towns recount authority in state or federal contests and remove the Secretary of State’s exclusive, uniform recount procedures. “This bill would give that authority to cities and towns in addition to the Secretary of State,” he said, and noted the bill provides no standards for training, counting procedures or control of chain-of-custody issues.

Senator Avard described the bill as a response to constituent concerns and recounted personal experiences where hand recounts produced vote changes. “If people want that ability to just double check, it's not a bad idea,” he said, and suggested flexibility in signature thresholds for larger municipalities.

Clerks and election officials raised practical problems: Dan Healy of the New Hampshire City and Town Clerks Association said local recounts for municipal contests go to the town, while state and federal recounts go to the Secretary of State, and argued the bill’s language needed clarification. He and other clerks warned that expanding recount authority would strain volunteer recruitment and require trained counters.

Civic groups including Open Democracy and the League of Women Voters of New Hampshire opposed the bill. Olivia Zink, executive director of Open Democracy, said the bill extends the request period from the current statutory deadline (the Friday after the election) to 15 days and that the proposal appears to be placed in RSA 65:242 (ballot law commission rules) rather than the RSA 660 recount procedures where such a change would belong.

Liz Centarelli, president of the League of Women Voters of New Hampshire, cited academic studies and state recount experience, saying hand counts can be more error-prone and that the bill could permit “any group of election deniers to usurp an election” if the signature language is not constrained to voters in the relevant municipality or ward.

Al Fulcino and other supporters said the bill was about transparency and the right to verify machine counts; Fulcino noted towns cannot currently conduct hand verifications at will and called for the option to check machine results. He also raised concerns about outsourced programming and memory cards, arguing that public trust would be improved by periodic hand checks.

Committee members asked about the mechanics and costs. Testimony raised multiple unresolved issues: whether municipalities or the state would pay recount costs depending on whether the recount involves municipal versus state contests; how the proposed 15-day window would interact with primary and general election calendars and ballot preparation deadlines; and what training and uniform standards would apply.

Secretary Scanlon concluded by reiterating opposition: “There are uniform procedures in a very controlled environment so that every recount that is conducted is conducted under the same conditions as the one before,” he said, and warned that the bill, as written, lacks those safeguards. The committee did not take a vote and the hearing record included numerous written submissions opposing the bill and several in support.