_fw.png)
DANIEL RICHARD V. THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE AND THE TOWN OF AUBURN STATEWIDE UPDATE - PART 1
- NH Muckraker
- 7 days ago
- 2 min read
Daniel Richard brings suit against Governor Christopher Sununu, Attorney General John Formella, Secretary of State David Scanlan, Speaker of the House Sherman Packard, and President of the Senate Chuck Morse...
Summary of the Case
Plaintiff: Daniel Richard
Defendants:
State Defendants: NH Governor Sununu, AG Formella, SOS Scanlan, Speaker Packard, and Senate President Morse
Town Defendants: Keith LeClair (Auburn BOS Chair) and Daniel Goonan (Town Administrator)
Claim Focus: Plaintiff alleges that his vote was "diluted" and his right to equal protection under the NH Constitution and U.S. Constitution was violated because his town (Auburn) used electronic ballot counting devices (BCDs), whereas other NH towns hand-count ballots.
⚖️ Procedural History
NH Supreme Court Decision (Sept. 12, 2024): Vacated lower court’s dismissal of some claims and remanded only Count II (Equal Protection) back to Superior Court. All other counts (I and III–VI) were to be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
🧩 Key Legal Issues
Equal Protection under NH Constitution (Count II)
Plaintiff argues he's treated unequally compared to voters in towns that hand-count ballots.
He claims electronic counting “dilutes” his vote and undermines the election's fairness.
Town’s Position:
No allegations in Amended Complaint specifically name the Town in the Equal Protection claim.
Town followed state law and was not treating any voter differently within Auburn.
State’s Position:
The relevant statutes (RSA 656:40–42) are permissive — municipalities may choose to use BCDs.
These laws do not create classifications or treat similarly situated persons differently.
🏛️ Court’s Findings
No Equal Protection Violation:
Following McGraw v. Exeter, voters in BCD towns are not similarly situated to voters in hand-count towns because towns lawfully choose their voting method.
Therefore, Plaintiff's claim fails at the first step: no differential treatment of similarly situated people.
Even if they were similarly situated:
The law would still stand because it's reasonable, nondiscriminatory, and promotes an important regulatory interest (i.e., efficient and accurate vote counting).
Procedural Claims Rejected:
Plaintiff’s assertion that Town Defendants waived their right to move to dismiss was incorrect. Their motion was timely under Superior Court Rule 9.
New Allegations Raised Too Late:
Plaintiff’s claim that Auburn treats him differently than other Auburn voters was not in the complaint, so the Court did not consider it.
Counts I and III–VI Dismissed (Per Supreme Court):
Plaintiff lacked standing — claims were generalized grievances, not specific personal injuries.
✅ Final Outcome
All claims dismissed.
Both motions to dismiss (State and Town Defendants) GRANTED.
Comentários