21 April 2010
A legislative bill concerning our state’s “Right to Know” laws and secret balloting made its way through the New Hampshire state house. This legislation specifically deals with the process by which our county committees fill the vacated positions of elected public officials. The language of the existing law is problematic and has led to costly lawsuits for our counties. While I appreciate the bill sponsor’s motives in addressing the ambiguity in the law and trying to fix the problems, I did not feel HB1687 is the right solution.
The impetus for this House Bill stems from a Belknap County case in 2009 regarding the election of the interim sheriff. The county delegates voted for a replacement via secret ballot. The process was challenged under the “Right to Know” law and was overturned. Now, Rockingham County is facing a similar situation. The sheriff and deputy sheriff resigned last fall. While Department Captain Al Brackett is by all accounts doing a good job running things until the vacancy is filled, the delegates are bound by current law to vote for a replacement.
HB 1687 sought to clarify vagueness in the voting method used to elect a replacement for county office. The current statute 91:A often referred to as the “Right to Know” provision states, “all meetings, whether held in person, by means of telephone or electronic communication, or in any other manner, shall be open to the public. Except for town meetings, school district meetings, elections, no vote while in open session may be taken by secret ballot.” HB 1687 sought to amend this language and insert “and county conventions when voting to fill a vacancy in county offices under RSA 661:9, I,” after ‘elections’ to include the county conventions as exempt. The delegates could legally hold a secret ballot election if “The members of the county convention may by a vote of the convention use a secret ballot to fill such a vacancy” language is added by passage of HB1687. This does solve the legal vagueness of how to elect replacements and would provide for legal secret ballots.
Supporters claim that secret ballot elections are needed because of the time it would take to roll call open ballots, the potential hurt feelings of candidates, and political pressure to vote for a certain candidate. They argue that allowing for secret ballots is in line with other legislative processes that allow for ‘secret’ via division vote in the state house.
In my opinion, the matter of voting replacement county officials is important. The position of county sheriff is elected directly by the people for good reason. The sheriff office has substantial power and ought to be held accountable by the voters. In the case where a replacement needs to be selected, we ought to use the process that is most transparent. If state representatives are charged with the responsibility of voting on a replacement, then the process ought to be transparent so that they can be held accountable by the voters. While secret ballot for an individual is the law, as an elected representative voting on behalf of citizens, shouldn’t my constituents know how I vote when it comes to filling a position that they would normally elect? I understand that open ballot elections at a county legislative meeting can be time consuming and cumbersome, but secret ballots cannot be the best answer. I strongly believe that citizens have the right to know how their representatives vote on this matter.
Ideally, a special election would be the best method of selecting a replacement county official, the same as we do when a state representative vacates prior to serving a full term. However, countywide special elections are very costly and are not a practical solution in the current fiscal environment. Our current statutes do not allow for one either.
Another possible solution would be a minor change in the wording of the current statute to allow the counties some flexibility in the replacement process. Current law states that the legislative delegation shall elect a replacement. The delegation is compelled by state law to act. A minor change in the statute from “shall” to “may” would allow counties the flexibility in deciding to hold an election if necessary. Allowing the sheriff’s department to continue under existing interim leadership until the next regular election may under certain circumstances be a good idea.
In these times when voters lack confidence in their elected representatives and government in general; adding more secrecy and the appearance of backroom dealing does not lend itself to more open governance or better government. HB1687 was a sweeping stroke and a quick fix. The state legislature needs to consider other possible options than resorting to a secret ballot. This is not the time to act in haste to fill this position, but to consider all options to keep the power and responsibility close to the people.
The Senate rightfully voted the bill ITL- Inexpedient to Legislate, effectively ending the bills progress. I am planning on working to clarify the process by which we elect a replacement and the compelling language within the statute.