On June 4, I attended a discussion on the New Hampshire election process at the Monadnock Center for History and Culture.
Former Sen. Charley Bass and Peterborough Town Moderator “Phil” Runyon led the discussion. Former Congressman Dick Swett was supposed to be the other panelist but was trapped on a late-running flight and unable to make the meeting. Congressman Bass filled in for him, explaining they agreed on this issue. Both are New Hampshire representatives to The Democracy Defense Project, a national group formed to restore and protect our democracy as reflected through our elections. The general purpose of this group is to pair two people of opposite parties in this effort to reinstate civility and bipartisan discussions into the election process. They explain their purpose in this manner:
“Today, American politics are more divisive than ever. An erosion of faith in our democracy, and the proliferation of politicians undermining election integrity to bolster their own campaign, reputation, or party’s influence, have caused false narratives about ‘stolen elections’ to take root. The mistrust that many voters now have for our electoral system puts our democracy at grave risk.”
When I left this discussion, I started thinking about the election process in Wilton. At one time, I had been quite familiar with how elections were run and believed the process left no doubt as to its accuracy and fairness.
I knew this because I regularly volunteered to count ballots in Wilton. This work took place at a table with three others. Everyone had a role. One person reported the replies from each ballot. Another confirmed everything read was correct. A third person marked each vote onto a tally sheet and the fourth made certain that the information was also correct. The person writing also recorded write-in votes for each office and added a mark every time a name repeated. They were stacked into piles of 50 ballots, with the remaining few forming another pile. A final count of the number of ballots completed at each table went to the moderator. The next step was to compare the total number of ballots counted with the number of ballots cast for that election, including those sent in by mail. If the numbers did not agree, the moderator ordered a recount to make certain one pile did not contain too many or too few until all numbers agreed.
At this point, the moderator received a report of the number of votes for each office from each table. They made a final tally of the total number of votes cast for each candidate and filed the official report. It often took hours to complete this process. No one went home until the results were known. But this was not all work. It was also a time for everyone to gather over pizza, sweets, coffee and camaraderie.
Now, voting machines have taken over the role of human vote-counters, with the process reduced to around an hour.
To find out how things have changed, I spoke with Lori Rolke. She has been a part of the Wilton election process for 23 years, most of that as one of the three elected supervisors of the checklist.
She began our conversation by mentioning that every state has different methods of managing the voting process, from where and how to register to where and how to cast your ballot. Lori’s son lives in Colorado, and there they register to vote when they register their vehicle and vote in kiosks at a designated location.
She continued, “As the processes change, sometimes so do the requirements needed to prove your residency, citizenship and ability to prove who you are.” She related she learned of one case in upper New York state where a woman who had registered to vote 47 years previously was unable to vote since her signature no longer resembled the one that was nearly five decades old.
She went on to confirm things have also altered in Wilton over the past few decades. Real IDs or passports are now standard requirements. Knowing someone at the check-in station no longer allows you access to the voting booths. Non-jamming electronic counters have sped up the efficiency and accuracy of the process. Scanners print out and alphabetize voters’ names to compare to the checklist, and tabulators cancel over- and undervotes.
Lori added these changes reflect the way voting has changed throughout the state. Proposed new laws could further alter the registration process for new N.H. voters. Until recently, all you needed to register to vote was a driver’s license or a college ID and proof you lived in town. New regulations under consideration would mean college IDs or parents’ words no longer work for 18-year-olds as proof of residence. Proving citizenship is even trickier. To register, new voters would have to provide a birth certificate and formal proof they live in a New Hampshire town. The process would become even more arduous for new female registrants. If married one or more times, new female voters must provide marriage certificates documenting each name change. Both proposed regulations are in process but are on hold due to recent court decisions.
Even voting officials have new regulations. Instead of meeting once a year to update the voter checklist, checklist supervisors now meet every 90 days to record all updates and make certain the list is correct. Computers have made double registrations in two or more towns “a thing of the past.” When a new voter registers in a town, their previous town of residence automatically receives that information.
Another change is computers will automatically follow voter histories and delete names of those who have not voted in five years, instead of town election officials making voter-name deletions after 10 years. Those deleted would need to reregister to vote again.
Lori concluded, “I think New Hampshire is doing a great job. The Secretary of State is working hard to prove the state is serious about holding fair elections.”
After listening to Lori, I stand by my original perception: that elections in New Hampshire are overwhelmingly fair. Now, what is required to make certain that our democracy doesn’t falter is to guarantee access for all citizens and our own participation as voters.