Letter: Why not recount votes?
To the editor:
This is regarding Article 30 from the Jaffrey Town Meeting. I have never before heard a legal case presented against a nonbinding article.
But, since the Attorney General and Secretary of State know what the petition asked for is legal, the Ballot Law Commission approved the defective technology in 2006 with the understanding moderators could conduct these kinds of random checks and, a state advisory group concluded its 18 months of work with the recommendation random checks of the computer count were among the “highest priority,” who advised Attorney Kelly Dowd?
He told the meeting that these random checks would “violate state regulations.”
Did he talk with either the secretary of state or attorney general? I have asked that question of Mr. Dowd and the Jaffrey Select Board but haven’t yet received a response.
I’ve also asked if the town will work with me to present a warrant article for 2014 town meeting we all can support.
I say to the people of Jaffrey the same thing I have said to our moderator, “I’m not going to lie to you.”
I will make sure a copy of the state advisory group report (Final Report: Electronic Ballot Counting Device Advisory Committee) is available at the library (with web address so you can also read minutes of meetings.)
The films Hacking Democracy and Stealing America Vote by Vote are already there. Google “Project Everest” (Ohio) and TTBR (California) for the science behind the need to do random checks of the AccuVote.
Before Town Meeting, I knew the Secretary of State didn’t want our moderator to do these.
Now I know that the Jaffrey Select Board does not. The question is, “Why?”