To the editor:
While I agree with much of what Karen White wrote in response to my letter to the editor, I feel compelled to flesh out the story further on our son’s denied right to vote in Peterborough’s New Hampshire presidential primary. Due to space constraints, some key points were deleted in my initial letter with my approval.
My husband had talked directly with Linda Guyette about the situation less than a week before our son’s return to vote. The goal was to verify if our son could still vote if he returned the Friday before the primary. The circumstances were explained, and my husband was told yes. The fact that our son drove back, during an ice storm the night before, and then was denied the right to vote is the big sticking point for me, especially when told beforehand he could indeed vote. He is on the Peterborough checklist, which also could have been checked. That same day I spoke with the Secretary of State’s office who passed me on to one of their lawyers. He said it was indeed a gray area. The new domicile law appears to be muddying the lines of clarity for all.
In addition, I spoke with the Peterborough post office. I was told there is not a strict policy about what to do with ballots. It is more of an individual decision per office. However, this weekend, a reader let me know that what is “not really gray is that the ballot should have been delivered as addressed in Maine.” He contacted the District Manager of Northern New England for the USPS and she will be re-informing postmasters in NNE about the correct delivery policy. At least this situation might be fixed for future voters.
Susan Shute
Peterborough