Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Election Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Testimony before subcommittee flags absentee‑ballot affidavit and chain‑of‑custody concerns
Summary
A lengthy witness testimony argued New Hampshire’s absentee affidavit process was altered in the 1979 recodification and that changes to the affidavit envelope and moderator duties have created chain‑of‑custody and audit problems for absentee ballots.
A New Hampshire House Election Law Subcommittee hearing on Friday included extended testimony from a citizen who said changes to the state’s absentee‑ballot affidavit process have weakened verification and the chain of custody for absentee ballots, raising recount and equal‑protection concerns.
Daniel Richard, an Auburn resident who said he has litigated election matters to the state Supreme Court, told the panel he has documented a historical change in which a notary‑style “affidavit envelope” used for absentee ballots was altered after a 1979 recodification of election statutes. Richard said the change shifted responsibilities from moderators and local officials to an administrative election procedure manual and that the manual cannot substitute for statute.
“We now have a lawful chain of custody” when a moderator or authorized official witnesses the voter insert a ballot into an affidavit envelope, Richard told the subcommittee. He said those safeguards were removed in later statutory changes and in practice replaced by an unsworn declaration on the envelope and administrative guidance in the Election Procedure Manual. Richard argued the manual’s instructions do not carry the force of law and that the secretary of state’s office and the attorney general do not have power to legislate through the manual.
Richard described three linked concerns: different tabulation methods across municipalities (hand counts versus machines) produce unequal verifiability; absentee ballots lacking a properly executed affidavit cannot be reconciled during recounts; and certifying elections that include unverified absentee ballots risks producing unreliable outcomes. He told members that absentee voting rose to roughly 32 percent of ballots in 2020 — far above a historical average of about 4 percent — and that the higher volumes intensify the problem.
The witness cited statutes and historical practice dating to 1942, argued the notary certificate language was present in earlier law and removed over time, and said the state secretary of state’s recent testimony conflicted in part with the attorney general’s legal positions. He also said a federal signature‑verification expert previously testified that local moderators generally lack the training to perform reliable signature forensics and that the affidavit process previously supplied an authenticated signature for local verification.
Committee members asked about practical solutions for voters who cannot leave their homes. Richard suggested reinstating local procedures used historically — such as authorized local officials making home visits — rather than relying solely on a mailbox or self‑affirming envelope. Members also discussed whether a legislative fix should require notarization, reintroduce moderators’ duties, or create alternative authenticated procedures for military and overseas voters.
The subcommittee did not adopt formal changes at the session. The chair said the panel would compile testimony and research for a report to the full Election Law Committee. Richard said he has pending litigation that relates to many of the issues he described and that the state supreme court remanded parts of his equal‑protection claim to the trial court for further proceedings.
