Sometimes things do not turn out as I would like. I am far from my teenage years and not as adept at computer usage as my grandkids. I wish they lived close enough to help me set up files and teach me how to organize a fail-safe system for saving information in the right place. Recently, this latter issue created unanticipated angst for me. Let me explain:
When I write something for this column, I always start with a rough draft, a working copy that contains the essence of what I plan to discuss. I often start a column before I conduct an interview. This becomes the framework from which I build my story. I want to set the stage and develop it from there. This also gives whomever I interview an idea about where the column will go. I continue to refine, elaborate, add information and cut out sections that are either unclear or wrong. I save all the different iterations in a file named “Words About Wilton.” Unless I inadvertently send updates to the wrong file.
This happened to my recent article, “Defending Democracy.” I saved the original draft properly, but subsequent changes and many new additions were not so lucky. These were sent to a file I had been using for a different topic. If I had checked, the original draft would have been updated as I made the changes. Instead, it remained as originally penned and my final draft remained buried in the wrong file, unsubmitted.
For this reason, this edition of Words About Wilton will be a repeated, but vastly updated, version of “Defending Democracy” without the full introductory section.
After listening to a discussion in Peterborough on June 4 about the importance of preserving democracy and rebuilding trust in the democratic voting system, I left believing elections in New Hampshire were historically fair, accurate and well-run.
I knew this because I spent nearly two decades volunteering to count ballots in Wilton. This work took place at many tables with four people at each. Everyone at a table had a role: a vote reporter, a vote recorder and two observers.
When the total number of ballots counted matched the number of ballots cast, each table reported their results to the moderator, who then compiled a final tally of the total number of votes cast for each candidate. These became Wilton’s 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 and the process has been 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 them 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. She continued, “As the processes change, sometimes so do the requirements needed to prove your residency, citizenship and ability to prove who you are.”
Lori went on to confirm things have altered in Wilton over the past few decades. Knowing someone at the check-in station no longer allows you access to the voting booths. Students must now have proof of identity and domicile in hand: Parents’ words or college IDs are no longer valid as proof of residence. 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 under-votes. Lori added that these changes reflect the way voting has changed throughout the state.
Even Wilton 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.
Further research led me to a variety of sources where I learned that until a few weeks ago, New Hampshire had one of the most restrictive voting processes in the country due to HB 1569, which took effect in September 2024. Proving citizenship was tricky, requiring either a passport or birth certificate in hand at the time of registration. On May 28 this year, HB 1569 was declared unconstitutional and rescinded. It re-established sworn affidavits as valid proof of citizenship if a passport or birth certificate was not available.
The registration process was even more arduous for new female voters, particularly for those moving from one New Hampshire town to another. If married, remarried or divorced, women had to provide official proof of name change through marriage certificates documenting each new name so voter lists would match. Now, a sworn affidavit will again be proof enough.
David Scanlan, the New Hampshire secretary of state, has warned he will be filing an appeal to overturn this decision in hopes of stopping the proliferation of voter fraud in New Hampshire. Yet, according to an article in the New Hampshire Bulletin published May 29, quoting U.S. District Judge Samantha Elliott, who wrote the decision: “Between 1998 and 2024, there were (only) 47 incidents of voter fraud in NH and only eight of which involved non-citizens.” In that same article, Liz Tentarelli, president of the League of Women Voters of New Hampshire, said, “Granite Staters deserve a system that makes it possible for eligible voters to participate without unnecessary hurdles or confusion.”
According to Judge Elliott’s 98-page ruling, over the past 18 months an “overwhelming” number of New Hampshire voters who tried to vote and did not have a birth certificate or passport with them were turned away at the polls. Many of them never returned.
The question of whether it is better to disenfranchise potentially tens of thousands of voters in fear of a handful of potential fraudulent voters has been left to be decided, pending the outcome of any appeal.
After listening to Lori and from what I learned online, I stand by my original perception that elections in New Hampshire have historically been fair. Now what is required to make certain our democracy does not falter is to guarantee fair and easy voting access for all New Hampshire citizens while being involved voters ourselves.