Town Meeting Bill "Secret Ballot" bill opposed

The Citizen Friday, January 16, 2009

By BEA LEWIS
bwheel@metrocast.net

A bill to substantially increase how many voters it would take to call for a secret-ballot vote at Town Meeting will mostly likely be amended, the bill's prime sponsor reports.

State Rep. Betsey Patten, R-Moultonborough, initially sought to increase from five to 50 the number of people who must be present at Town Meeting plus sign a petition asking that a certain warrant article by voted on by secret ballot rather than by a show of hands. For towns with populations of fewer than 500 currently a total of three signatures are needed.

But following a hearing before the House Municipal and County Government Committee Wednesday Patten said it appears the bill will be amended to set the number at 10 or 15, or perhaps 5 percent of the voters on hand for the meeting. During the hearing process, Patten said, it came to the committee's attention that hamlets like Hart's Location in Carroll County don't have 50 residents.

"I know there is a lot of angst out there (about this legislation), but this hasn't been changed since 1971 when it was a lot more civil time," Patten said.

The fate of the bill will most likely be decided by the committee during a Tuesday, Jan. 27, session, she said.

Meanwhile, the Moultonborough Citizens Alliance which opposes the bill reports that no one spoke in favor of the proposed measure during the latest public hearing.

Opponents say the legislation is akin to stealing the rights of town meeting attendees across New Hampshire to petition for a private vote. Patten, they argue, designed the bill to preclude special interests from delaying Town Meeting with multiple "secret ballot" voting requests.

Arguments against the proposed bill are similar to those made in favor of Senate Bill 2 that requires all town meeting articles to be voted on by secret ballot - that anyone who raises their hand against a particular article befitting those affected sets themselves up for intimidation by their neighbors, customers, friends and teachers.

Rick Heath of Moultonborough, who vehemently opposes the bill, questions why the voting booth or an absentee ballot is the norm for the election of town and state officials and state mandated articles on the warrant, but not for spending issues.

"This is bad legislation," he said stressing that lengthening a meeting to allow for secret ballot voting is no reason to make it more difficult to do so. Patten did not believe the bill would be voted "in expedient to legislation," a move that would essentially kill it for this session.

HOME