#

New Boston residents opposed to a two percent spending cap warrant article are going to court to stop voters from being able to decide on the measure. And they have a hearing scheduled for Friday.

A group of pro-spending-hike residents filed a lawsuit this week asking a Hillsborough Superior Court judge to force selectmen to reschedule a canceled deliberative session on the spending cap. Residents Jon-Paul Turek, Robert Belanger, Richard Backus, Dan MacDonald, Keith Prive, Elizabeth Whitman, Eileen Belanger, Marie MacDonald, and William Gould want to be able to change the proposed two percent cap ahead of the Town Election.

State Rep. Keith Ammon (R-New Boston) is backing the spending cap in response to years of rising property taxes in town. He recently told NHJournal opponents want to raise the cap to as much as 50 percent before it goes to voters, making the measure meaningless. 

“I don’t think that’s legal,” Ammon said.

The current controversy centers on the Feb. 3 Town Meeting deliberative session where the spending cap proposal was discussed. Both Town Moderator Lee Nyquist and Town Attorney Michael Courtney told people at that meeting the numbers in the two percent spending cap could not be changed under state law. 

But the residents opposed to the cap say that’s wrong, and they should have been allowed to change the numbers on Feb. 3.

“The misinformation provided by the Town Moderator and Town Attorney at the deliberative session constitutes a clear procedural defect, as it directly misled voters and deprived them of their legal right to amend (the spending cap,)” the lawsuit states.

After getting stymied at the Feb. 3 meeting, the anti-spending-cap group pushed New Boston’s Board of Selectmen for an emergency deliberative session where they could get their way. But Ammon went to court arguing such a move is illegal. The Selectmen stood down, canceling the planned Feb. 18 session.

Now, residents who want to spend beyond the cap are asking the court to force selectmen to hold the special deliberative session anyway, claiming it is the only way to protect the integrity of Town Meeting.

“The decision to cancel the Special Town Meeting was not an act of prudence but an act of abdication—one that directly harms the registered voters of New Boston by allowing an improperly handled warrant article to proceed to the ballot without correction,” the lawsuit states.

New Boston education spending has been soaring for years. Between 2001 and 2019, the school population grew by 22 percent, but spending jumped by 104 percent. Per pupil spending rose from about $16,000 to more than $27,000 over that same period.

With New Boston’s Town Meeting set for March 11, timing is running short to make any changes. A hearing in the lawsuit is scheduled for Friday in the Hillsborough Superior Court — North in Manchester. 

With his town facing skyrocketing local taxes, state Rep. Keith Ammon (R-New Boston) had enough of the annual spending sprees.

“Our taxes have gone up 30 percent in the last six months,” Ammon told NHJournal. “People cannot afford to live in town anymore. I just figured somebody’s gotta do something.”

Ammon is behind an effort to get spending under control by instituting a 2 percent cap on the town budget. That cap does not cut spending, but would limit future budget increases to 2 percent over the prior year’s approved budget. 

“Two percent is the standard inflation rate,” Ammon said.

But Ammon had to go to court this week to keep his tax cap proposal from being gutted by opponents. 

Rep. Keith Ammon (R-New Boston)

New Boston is already reeling from massive school spending spikes coupled with continuous town government increases. Some residents have seen their annual tax bill go up $2,000 in the last year. Meanwhile, the town’s proposed budget for 2025 comes in at $7,476,141, nearly a 5 percent hike, or $355,539, over the 2024 budget. That increased spending will result in a 2.6 percent tax increase for New Boston homeowners.

New Boston education spending has been soaring for years. Between 2001 and 2019, the school population grew by 22 percent, but spending jumped by 104 percent. Per pupil spending rose from about $16,000 to more than $27,000 over that same period.

After following state and local law, and collecting enough signatures to get the proposed cap on the upcoming Town Meeting ballot as a petitioned warrant article, Ammon learned last week there was a campaign to illegally change the cap article at the last minute.

New Boston is an SB2 Town Meeting municipality where voters decide on the budget and other warrant articles through a secret ballot vote, as opposed to a traditional open Town Meeting where nearly every question is put to a floor vote of the people attending the meeting.

In SB2 towns, voters are able to discuss and amend warrant articles during a deliberative session held at least a month before the ballot vote.

During the Feb. 3 deliberative session, however, New Boston voters were able to discuss the tax cap article, but not make any changes to the language of the article. Ammon told NHJournal there are people in town who wanted to derail the tax cap by amending the article via voice vote at the deliberative session and raising the 2 percent limit up to a whopping 50 percent. 

The problem with that plan, however, is that it would have been illegal. The town’s attorney and the town’s moderator both informed voters at the Feb. 3 deliberative session that under the law, the tax cap limit cannot be changed at the session. Town Meeting rules allow voters to amend appropriations up or down, but the cap percentage is not an appropriation, Ammon said. 

Days after that meeting, however, voters opposed to the tax cap went to selectmen and demanded a new deliberative session. They claimed a new deliberative session was required to correct the fact they were blocked from changing the tax cap on Feb. 3, which they called a “minor procedural irregularity.” The board agreed with the tax cap opponents, and scheduled the new deliberative session for Wednesday.

Ammon engaged attorney Richard Lehmann and filed an emergency motion in Hillsborough Superior Court — North in Manchester. Lehmann’s filing makes clear the tax cap opponents are trying to get their way by breaking the law.

“The petitioners do not seek to correct a ‘minor procedural irregularity.’ On the contrary, they seek a re-do of the meeting, at which time they will, presumably, seek to amend the language of Warrant Article 31 by changing (or removing) the percentage of permitted growth in the tax cap,” Lehmann wrote. 

With 24 hours to go before the “do-over” deliberative session, New Boston’s Select Board blinked and canceled the meeting.

“After reviewing this lawsuit with legal counsel, the Select Board is canceling the Special Deliberative Session scheduled for February 19, 2025, to avoid unnecessary expense to the Town litigating this matter,” the board said in a statement released Tuesday.

New Boston Town Administrator Carl Weber did not respond to a request for comment. Ammon said the board did the right thing by canceling the re-do session.

“I commend the Select Board for doing the right thing. It’s not always easy to make decisions on the fly like that,” Ammon said.

As of now, the tax cap question will go to voters on March 11. Ammon hopes voters choose to fix the out-of-control spending that is hurting their community.

“If we’re not going to do something about it now, when are we going to do something?” Ammon said.

Anonymous election mailers and unsigned political websites are becoming too common in New Hampshire as cities and towns prepare for their school and town meetings, and Attorney General John Formella is advising the public to be wary.

Formella’s office announced Tuesday it is dealing with five election law violations this week, days before the start of the town and school meeting season.

“As the elections are so close, the identities of these individuals may not be known prior to the elections. As a result, (Formella) reminds voters to do their own research on candidates and warrant articles before they vote,” the statement from Formella’s office stated. 

Town meeting season, the oldest form of democracy in the United States, traditionally starts the second Tuesday of March. Formella’s office cites five reported cases of election law violations designed to impact voters.

People are encouraged to engage in the elections through mailers, websites, and other forms of campaigning, but they need to follow the law. Political communications and political signs— “express advocacy” communications—are required to have information identifying the person or entity responsible for the advertising, known as “paid-for” disclaimers, under New Hampshire law, the Attorney General’s Office reminded the public.

“Political advertising, mailers, and signs are one of the treasured traditions of New Hampshire elections. They are also a physical expression of people’s First Amendment right of free speech. However, voters also have a right, under New Hampshire law, to know who is issuing political advertising in support or opposition to a candidate or a question on the ballot,” Formella’s statement read.

Two of the five complaints investigated this week resulted in the people responsible being identified.

In Thornton, unidentified flyers were sent directing voters to visit the website “stopthetax.info.” The website, also unidentified, told voters to vote “NO” on certain warrant articles at the March 9 school district meeting. 

The Attorney General’s Election Law Unit and Thornton Chief of Police Daniel Gilman tracked the flier and website to a group of approximately 20 Thornton residents, including David Rivers, who is responsible for the “stopthetax.info” website. Bob Hatch was identified as the person who is responsible for the flyers. Rivers was directed to correct the website to comply with the law.   

In Milford, anonymous “Community Help LLC” published the website “milfordvoterguide.com” which contains endorsements of candidates and warrant articles on the Milford ballot for the March 14 election. Jeff Horn was later identified as the person responsible, and he will be correcting the website and adding his name to future political material.

However, investigations into three more anonymous websites remain open. That includes Raymond’s “raymondrights.com” website; the “supportnewfields.com” site trying to influence the Newfields elections; and the anonymous mailers in Hollis telling people to vote “no” on the town’s warrant article 2. The Hollis fliers were mailed under a Tampa, Fla. postal permit. 

However, the biggest open case of election fraud is from the 2022 Republican primary in New Hampshire’s Second Congressional District. A Democratic-affiliated print shop shipped at least four different illegal mailers designed to influence the GOP primary. The printer, Reynolds DeWalt Corporation, refused to reveal who paid for the mailers, prompting Formella to open an investigation last September.

The mailers were part of a successful effort to get MAGA Republican Bob Burns the GOP nomination, who was handily defeated by Democrat Rep. Annie Kuster in November.

Asked about the status of the illegal mailer case, a spokesperson for the Attorney General’s Office said the investigation remains active and ongoing.

Monday was supposed to be the calm before the storm, but in New Hampshire politics, the day was muddled with confusion over the legality of towns’ rights to postpone Tuesday’s elections due to the impending blizzard.

The day started with Secretary of State William Gardner saying, “We don’t have snow days in the law for elections.”

Yet, town officials throughout the state were taking matters into their own hands and postponing the annual “second Tuesday in March” elections for later in the week after the snowstorm subsided. Reasons for postponement were mostly due to ensuring the safety of residents and first responders from hazardous road conditions. Some parts of the state are expected to receive between 10 to 20 inches on Tuesday.

The secretary of state’s office maintained its position that by state law, towns are required to hold elections regardless of the snow and expected blizzard conditions. If they don’t, there could be legal consequences. Town officials say a different state law allows them to change the day of the election in an emergency situation.

“I don’t know what the consequences will be,” Paula Penney, elections assistant at the secretary of state’s office, told The Portsmouth Herald. “If they don’t have the election tomorrow, it may end up in superior court. But I don’t know what’s going to happen. I don’t have any indication that (the office’s) position will change.”

The two laws in question are RSA 669:1 and 40:4. RSA 669:1 is the law the secretary of state’s office was citing as requiring towns to hold the election, regardless of the snow. The law states:

“All towns shall hold an election annually for the election of town officers on the second Tuesday in March…”

RSA 40:4 is cited by the towns for giving them the flexibility to change the date of election in the event of an emergency. This law states:

“In the event a weather emergency occurs on or before the date of a deliberative session or voting day of a meeting in a town, which the moderator reasonably believes may cause the roads to be hazardous or unsafe, the moderator may, up to 2 hours prior to the scheduled session, postpone and reschedule the deliberative session or voting day of the meeting to another reasonable date, place, and time certain.”

So which interpretation is right? Some legal experts said it’s not exactly clear if that law refers to voting for races in elections or voting for budget and other town issues at traditional town hall meetings.

John Greabe, a law professor at the University of New Hampshire, told NH Journal that the specific rule would “govern over” the general rule.

“It’s not uncommon for there to be two statutes that seem to be at odds with each other,” he said. “It’s a traditional approach to the conflict of laws where there is a more specific rule and a more general rule. It’s common for courts to go with the more specific rule.”

Cordell Johnston, government affairs council with the New Hampshire Municipal Association, said the organization sides with the towns.

“I don’t think there is any inconsistency in the law,” he told NH Journal. “We believe it’s very clear that they [towns] could move the election.”

He mentioned that a group of municipal lawyers on a list-serv “overwhelmingly” agreed that the moderator has the clear authority to reschedule the election.

With significant confusion surrounding the issue, Gov. Chris Sununu weighed in on debate. He spoke with municipal leaders and Attorney General Joe Foster in a Monday afternoon conference call encouraging them to hold elections, but said the state would not mandate them to do it.

“It’s our understanding that a lot of towns have already made a choice to postpone their elections,” he told reporters. “There are some differing opinions at the state level as to whether that is a valid process for them to take. The best we can do is to strongly recommend that all towns stay open for voting tomorrow. We think that’s a very important part of the process. But given the differing opinions, I don’t think we’re in a position to mandate that towns stay open or change their direction if they choose not to.”

Sununu cautioned town officials that if they postpone Tuesday’s elections, they are doing so “at their risk,” suggesting the town could be open to lawsuits for voter suppression.

“It would create a lot of confusion if one town voted on a school issue and another town did not, and you get into an issue of do you release the results and how is that processed,” he said. “You never want someone to have their vote suppressed, or have someone not be able to participate in the process because of confusion at the local level.”

Johnston said he interpreted Sununu’s message that “the state would not challenge a town’s decision to reschedule,” but an individual voter could.

“What I imagine could happen, although unlikely, a voter who is not happy about how things played out, would go to court and claim that the moderator violated his or her authority in rescheduling the vote,” he said. “But because the law is really clear, I don’t think the challenge will go that far.”

In order to make the interpretation very clear, and to avoid confusion like this in the future, New Hampshire Democratic leaders are planning to introduce emergency legislation this week to ensure that results from any town elections postponed due to snow are enforceable.

Senate Democratic Leader Jeff Woodburn and House Democratic Leader Steve Shurtleff released a statement announcing their plan to introduce legislation Wednesday during the Senate Rules and Enrolled Bills Committee:

“As elected officials, we have a solemn duty to ensure the safety of our citizens and no election should require voters to risk their safety in order to participate. Our election workers and town moderators are well-trained and take the task of facilitating transparent and fair elections seriously. We should trust them to make the best decision for their communities and for the safety of their people. That’s why we will attempt to introduce emergency legislation at this week’s Senate Rules Committee meeting to ensure that results from any elections postponed due to public safety concerns are enforceable and so that our local officials can make the right decision for their communities without fear of a legal challenge.”

Sununu agreed that the Legislature should take action to resolve the conflicts in state law, but it’s unclear if he will support the Democrats’ bill when it is introduced.

Is your local election and town meeting postponed? Check out the rolling list here as town officials make the decision.

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

Sign up for NH Journal’s must-read morning political newsletter.