HB395

I have been a Supervisor of the Checklist in Bethlehem for nearly seven years, though I am providing this testimony solely on my own behalf. As Supervisors, we handle quite a bit of confidential information, some of which is recorded on the documents that we handle on Election Day. We are bound by law NOT to disclose this information, yet this bill would require us to. We would thus be stuck in the position of violating either this new law, or existing confidentiality laws. Finally, asking the Town Moderator to appoint a replacement, when the Moderator is generally unfamiliar with the work load and what is involved in the job (beyond on election days themselves, when we of course see quite a bit of is not conducive to finding a replacement who is up to the task and prepared for the workload.

Unnecessary and potentially problematic. Please oppose.

School districts MUST remain non-partisan!!!!

Inspectors of Elections, better known as Ballot Clerks, are appointed, they are not elected. Supervisors of the Checklist are elected Election Officials. Why would people who are appointed to their jobs for 2 years have the authority to look over the shoulder any time they want of an elected official who may have had their job for 6 years or more? In Durham, I, as chairman of the Supervisors, actually train the Ballot Clerks, so I do not understand why they would have that authority over me. Furthermore, why would they want to? It is possible that the writer of this bill does not actually know what a Supervisor of the Checklist does. Besides registering new voters, we are very busy keeping the Checklist updated. We enter new voters onto the State-wide Voter Checklist (each of the three of us in Durham spent about 35 hours doing this after the November Election), we file new voter registration forms, we remove registration forms of people who have moved or died, then we file those deleted forms in another box. We write changes of address on original registration forms, we change party affiliations during and after Primaries, we send out letters to people who we believe have moved. Would we supervisors be expected to invite the Inspectors of the Election to join us every time we do any of these very mundane things? Of course, we also have public meetings at least every 90 days, which Inspectors of the Election are more than welcome to attend if they are interested in what we do. I might also add that the Registration Forms that we deal with are private documents that are only available for certain people to see. Most of the Supervisors of the Checklist in this state believe that our position should be non-partisan. Whereas we may be a member of one of the parties, we do not let that interfere with our job to register anyone who stands before us with proper identification. Therefore, expecting a person who is appointed to fill a resigning Supervisor’s position to be of the same party, should not be necessary. This could greatly affect our ability to even find a person to fill that position. People don’t come knocking at our door begging to be Supervisors of the Checklist.

No thank you!

This is an unnecessary change.

Speaking as a supervisor, I oppose this bill. FIRST The bill would amend elections law to include "II. Such inspectors, in addition, are authorized and empowered to observe all duties performed and documents handled by supervisors of the checklist as provided in RSA 654, 655, 657, 658, 659, and 671." The current Election Procedure Manual (EPM), on page 35, speaks to disclosure of voter registration form information. It identifies what is public information and states "The remaining information on the Voter Registration Forms is not subject to the Right-To-Know law, RSA 91-A. This information may be disclosed by election officials if disclosure is necessary to resolve a challenge to the voter, for investigations of election law violations, or for the records of an individual who is the subject of a law enforcement investigation or prosecution. RSA 654:31-a. Otherwise, it is a misdemeanor to disclose non-public information from a voter’s registration record.RSA 654:31; RSA 654:45, VI Supervisors of the checklist would be criminally negligent if this bill becomes law and they have to disclose voter documents to inspectors of the election. This alone should be reason to ITL this bill. SECOND, Per the EPM, (pg 121) "when filling a supervisor position, if the supervisors are elected by the partisan ballot system, the appointee shall be of the same political party as the supervisor whose place he or she is filling. RSA 669:64. Currently, no New Hampshire towns use the partisan ballot system; therefore, appointees may be from any party." Party is not a factor in electing a supervisor. Why should it come into play when filing a vacancy? Is this bill questioning the ability of supervisors to be non-partisan? and THIRD, A replacement supervisor may need to come up to speed very quickly, in our town we replaced a supervisor less than two weeks before the state primary. Supervisors, not the moderator, are in the best position to identify and vet a candidate. It is the supervisors who know the job and can, by talking with potential replacements, decide who is best qualified. We trust our elected officials to do their jobs based on the dictates of law and common morality and hope that our elected officials put the same trust in the supervisors of the checklist. Respectfully submitted, Iris Altilio Supervisor of the Checklist / Pembroke, NH

I am a Supervisor of the Checklist for Hancock NH and I am on my second 6 year term. I oppose this bill. Supervisors know our responsibilities and can explain this to any substitutes. The Moderators position has different responsibilities. Supervisors are not subordinate to Moderators. We are equal with different jobs. It is inappropriate to have Moderators filing a vacancy. Some of the information we handle as Supervisors in confidential, is not to be shared with others. Having the inspectors have full access to all information would be against our rules! I oppose this. Obviously our work meetings are public, are posted, so inspectors or anyone else can attend those meetings. But we maintain the confidentiality of private information as required by law at those meetings. Having an appointee be of the same political party, if declared, as the supervisor whose place he or she is filling is unnecessary. Our work is nonpartisan. Including reference to political party is not only not relevant but implies that the work is partisan. Our job is to follow the laws of the state of NH, and we work to know all details and use the resources of the state when/if we need clarification. This part of the bill is insulting to the work we do, to the oath we take. Please vote against HB 395

This is an unnecessary change. Supervisors are not Party specific and they never should be.

This is a bad bill. The job is hard enough already. This bill could expose personal information of voters to "inspectors". It's just another attempt by Republicans to solve a problem that DOES NOT EXIST! Voter fraud is virtually not existent.

Why mess with what has worked for decades? What don't you trust about our election system, to want to cause more disruption in the process by putting more work on Moderators? The current system is working fine--in small towns, it is hard enough to find citizens willing to serve, so why make it harder??

Have been a supervisor for 17 years - we are non-partisan - party is not an issue. This is a ridiculous bill. And folks from the SOS observe the supervisors at each election to make sure we are following the law. We always pass their inspections as I’m sure other towns do as well. There are no more dedicated election officials than the supervisors of the checklist - it is insulting to think otherwise.

Appointed party inspectors should not be allowed to "observe (view) documents handled by supervisors of the checklist" and the current law to fill a vacant Supervisor of the Checklist by the current Supervisors works ok. It does not need to change to being one person, the moderator, to make that appointment. That would be more likely to have partisan influence in the appointment.

I strongly oppose this bill. Inspectors of elections have no business having access to my voting record. This invasion of privacy is exactly what is done wrong about what’s happening in Washington DC. I’m an active voting constituent.