New Hampshire Recount Granted

This story, by Kristen Anderson at the Huffington Post, is a pretty good summary of my thinking about why we need a recount for the New Hampshire primary. We've heard all kinds of explanations for why the vote came out the way it did last week, and they all have their merits, but as we are just beginning the primary process, it behooves everyone to make sure we feel comfortable with the integrity of our election system.

When even the New York Times chimes in with an article entitled: "Can You Count on Voting Machines?" the Sunday before the New Hampshire primary, well...let's just say it will pay to make absolutely certain the results were accurate. At least New Hampshire uses all paper ballots, so there are physical marks for the recount counters to count.

Hats off to Dennis Kucinich and Republican candidate Albert Howard. I'm with Frank, who commented about my earlier posting on Kucinich's call for a recount, I hope Dennis stays in the race to the convention just so we will have a candidate who can and will request a recount everytime if necessary, if nothing else but for the sake of principle. -- wes grey wolf



By Wednesday morning, stories were flying all around the Internet--have you looked closely at the results of the primary? There was something strange about the votes, they said, about the difference between municipalities that hand-counted votes and those that used optical scanners. The chatter increased, and by Friday, the New Hampshire Department of State issued a press release announcing that two candidates, Democrat Dennis Kucinich and Republican Albert Howard had requested and been granted a recount, having met the following requirement:

"New Hampshire law, RSA 660:7, provides that "any person for whom a vote was cast for any nomination of any party at a state or presidential primary may apply for a recount." RSA 660:2, IV provides that if the difference between the vote cast for the applying candidate and a candidate declared elected shall be greater than 3 percent of the total votes cast in the towns which comprise the office to be recounted, the candidate shall pay the fees provided in RSA 660:2, III and shall agree in writing with the secretary of state to pay any additional costs of the recount." RSA 660:6 provides that if the person requesting the recount is declared the winner after the recount or loses by a margin of less than one percent of the total votes cast, the fees for the recount will be refunded by the State."

The recounts will begin on January 16, at a time and location to be announced after the state has completed an estimate of the cost and received payment based on that estimate.

Read the whole article here.


First posted 1-14-08 on the original Whistling Dog.