Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
After review and tied motion, Merrimack council leaves polling‑location change in place
Summary
Councilors reviewed voter counts, capacity and staffing before a motion to restore a third polling location failed to gain the majority needed, leaving the earlier decision about polling locations unchanged.
The Merrimack Town Council on Oct. 20 reviewed a request to reconsider its September decision to reduce polling places from three to two and, after extended discussion of voter counts, staffing and traffic, left the earlier decision in place.
Councilor Jennifer Jobin brought the reconsideration to the floor under council rules that allow reintroduction within the calendar year with sufficient consent. Town election staff (presented to the council by the town clerk) distributed a packet with maps, capacity estimates and turnout figures. The clerk said roughly 1,940 registered voters would move from the middle school to the high school under the new configuration and cited a projected high‑school registry of about 12,896; she also said the middle school could accommodate roughly 6,000. The packet included a letter from the school district offering cooperation and confirming that students would not be present at polling locations during elections.
Councilors debated tradeoffs: staff and some council members said consolidating reduces duplicate equipment and the number of people who must be trained, producing per‑election cost savings (public works overtime ~$3,000; police overtime ~$2,000; food/rental/insurance totaling roughly $1,258). Other councilors raised concerns about traffic bottlenecks on Daniel Webster Highway during high‑turnout elections and recommended consulting the police department about traffic plans; the fire marshal was cited as the authority for occupant/load limits once table/booth dimensions are provided.
After discussion Councilor Peter moved to reverse the prior decision and restore three polling places; the motion was seconded. The meeting record indicates the motion did not receive the majority needed to change the earlier action (the discussion notes a tie and that the decision remained unchanged). Several councilors asked staff to continue coordination with police and the fire marshal and to provide any additional modeling or traffic input prior to future large elections.
Council vote on the restoration motion: motion failed to change the prior decision (tie vote as recorded in meeting minutes).
