Grafton Watch Dogs Bark!
by Ed Naile
Speaking of town elections, the Town of Grafton this year decided to misuse a part of RSA 32:5, V-a to allow them to print “The Selectmen DO NOT recommend this article” on all the warrant articles that were petitioned by liberty activists.
Activists in Grafton have challenged how the ballots are written.
The statute RSA 32:5, V-a says in part:
V. When any purpose of appropriation, submitted by a governing body or by petition, appears in the warrant as part of a special warrant article:
(a) The article shall contain a notation of whether or not that appropriation is recommended by the governing body, and, if there is a budget committee, a notation of whether or not it is recommended by the budget committee;…
Special Warrant Articles are defined as:
VI. “Special warrant article” means any article in the warrant for an annual or special meeting which proposes an appropriation by the meeting and which:
(a) Is submitted by petition; or
(b) Calls for an appropriation of an amount to be raised by the issuance of bonds or notes pursuant to RSA 33; or
(c) Calls for an appropriation to or from a separate fund created pursuant to statute, including but not limited to a capital reserve fund under RSA 35, or trust fund under RSA 31:19-a; or
(d) Is designated in the warrant, by the governing body, as a special warrant article, or as a no-lapsing or nontransferable appropriation; or
(e) Calls for an appropriation of an amount for a capital project under RSA 32:7-a.
A Grafton citizen called the SoS/AG who concurred; towns are only allowed to print these recommendations on money/”special” warrant articles, not other kinds of warrant articles. The SoS is probably going to go after Grafton for doing this, but not before the elections.
Several concerned citizens sued Grafton to enjoin them from using these biased ballots, trying to force the Town to reprint them before the elections. Atty. Brandon Ross filed the complaint in Grafton County Superior Court. The judge ruled against them, but CNHT believes he is wrong, as shown above.