This NH House maps report is Part II of the Map-a-Thon Project's proposed 2020 voting district maps. This project is supported by Open Democracy Action, the Kent Street Coalition, Granite State Progress and the League of Women Voters New Hampshire. To date, over 250 people have participated in the process, ranging from research and data collection to mapping and analysis.

Our Mapping Process is Fair & Transparent The Map-a-Thon's project is a transparent process, including the software, criteria, data sources, maps, and analysis tools. Interested citizens and legislators can replicate our maps to verify our conclusions. We welcome your efforts to try to make even better maps! Please follow the links in the report to see the maps in our software.

Map-a-Thon maps also use “communities of interest” data when possible to determine what towns should – and should not – be in a district together. These, and other techniques, should be a model for the tools a future independent redistricting commission would use to determine voting districts, replacing the current partisan model. It should be noted that use of communities of interest is limited for House maps because of the hierarchy of constitutional and court rules.

Why NH House Redistricting is Difficult – and Disappointing

Mapping NH House of Representatives districts is constrained by these factors:

• The US and NH Constitutions

• US & NH Supreme Court decisions

• NH statutes

• The high number of state representatives- 400- one of the largest democratic bodies in the world.

• The size and location of our towns

• Traditions which influence deviation from the ideal population, and crossing county boundaries.

These factors often force us to put smaller towns with towns large enough to have their own dedicated voting districts, and sometimes results in larger, multi-town districts.

We hope to make policy recommendations for a better process in 2030.

We are disappointed that these constraints make NH representation often less local, personal, and reflective of individual communities. Our 2020 maps do help more Granite Staters get the representation they deserve, but we have a long way to go before our voting districts are truly representational.

Send your comments & corrections to[email protected].

The data on this page is available in PDF form by downloading it at OpenDemocracyNH.com/redistricting/mapathonreport2a.pdf

Belknap County

Belknap County Details & Analysis

The small size of Belknap County, the dispersion of towns eligible for their own House districts, and the number of reps to be allocated make the county difficult to map and honor the NH Constitution. The ideal number of reps is 18.498, .002 from having to round to 19, the worst possible scenario. Belknap County also gained population, resulting in a smaller than average window of deviation. Because 8 of 11 towns have a population of greater than 3,444, smaller towns which need to be in districts with other towns often need to be attached to larger towns robbing them of their dedicated House district. Without Constitutional and policy changes, Belknap willl continue to be deprived of proper representation.

• 3 towns received their own districts  - same as in 2010
• Smaller, compact non-floterial districts  - not more than 2.5 towns (one ward in Laconia)
• Only one floterial for the county
• Meredith, Gilmanton, Tilton would have their own House districts, but disappointingly, five others would not
• Laconia was not kept intact
• The county's deviations were within +/- 5%, from -3.28 to 4.71%. Total  7.99%

Carroll County

Carroll County Details & Analysis

Some improvements were made in Carroll County vs. 2010, but it is, and will be in the future, challenging. Carroll qualifies for 15 reps (county population divided by 3,444 = 14.55, rounded up to 15). However, the 14.55 adds complexity to the mapping. The southern part of Carroll County has more towns which qualify for their own House districts. The 2010 map districts both Conway and Ossipee in with smaller towns. The 2020 Map-a-Thon gives those towns their own, thus reduces violations of the NH Constitution vs. the 2010 the map, but Wolfeboro loses its own district.

The geography of two towns “force” errors on the map. Brookfield and Tuftonborough are smaller towns surrounded by larger ones. These communities need to be in a district, thus had to be paired with a larger town which should have had its own House district. Freedom and Effingham are now is a smaller district, but Sandwich and Tamworth couldn't be done in our maps, something for which residents have asked.

Two unfortunate results: Sandwich and Albany are technically contiguous, but does not meet our standards for compactness. We also created two large districts out of necessity, but advocate for smaller districts whenever possible.

Deviations for Carroll County ranges from -4.93 to 1.54 % for an overall deviation of +/- 6.47%

Cheshire County

Cheshire County Details & Analysis

Cheshire County lost a state representative seat due to a loss of population in the last 10 years, one of the reasons the map needs to be adjusted. 

One of the advantages of the Map-a-Thon map includes facilitating four eligible towns to receive their own House districts, vs. two in 2010. This includes Hinsdale, Jaffrey, Ridge & Winchester. But these improvements come with baggage. Some districts are larger than 2010, and all towns are in a floterial. Reducing floterials would have resulted in even larger districts.

Three of Keene's wards were added to a floterial  (3,4,5), and Ward 1 connected to other towns.  Ward 2 is in a floterial with other towns.

2010's Cheshire District 1 is broken up into now in smaller districts, with a smaller in population per district, with eligible Hinsdale receiving its own dedicated House district.

Pros & Cons of this Map

Coos County

Coos County Details & Analysis

Map-a-Thon's 2020 proposal for Coos has zero violations of the NH Constitution for towns eligible for their own House district. There had been two towns eligible, but Lancaster lost population since 2010, and no longer qualifies.

Most of the districts now follow the roads, making it easier for legislators to travel their districts, and we have the same number of districts, but Coos did lose a seat because of population loss.

The sparsely-populated North Country unfortunately means large, sprawling districts, no matter who is doing the mapping.

The deviation ranges from -3.89 to 4.80, a total of 8.69%

Grafton County

Grafton County Details & Analysis

Our maps do not make significant headway on getting towns their own House districts, with the same number in both the 2010 as with our 2020 maps. Our maps have three violations, with the eligible towns of Littleton, Haverhill and Plymouth included in multi-town districts.

The Map-a-Thon maps have dedicated House districts for Canaan, Enfield .Lebanon & Hanover, and for a total of six out of nine eligible towns.

As with some of the other counties, the ideal number of reps was calculated at 26.458, making for somewhat high deviations, from – 4.67% to 4.99%, a total of 9.66% out of a possible range of 10%.

Hillsborough County

Our Hillsborough County map made some significant improvements over 2010. There are 37 towns & city wards eligible for their own House districts(s), and the Map-a-Thon maps reduced the violations from eight to six for that Constitutional requirement.

New Hampshire's most populous county receives 122.81 state representatives, rounded up to 123.

Particular challenges for Hillsborough County includes the larger towns in the eastern part of the county sometimes have no choice but to have smaller towns in a district. The western end of the county has many smaller towns less than the 3,444 ideal population which need to be grouped together.

One particular problem on the 2010 map included the incredibly large district of Hudson & Pelham, Hillsborough District 37. Both towns made substantial population gains in the preceding decade, and stand at 25,826 for Hudson and 14,222. Because of its larger number of voters, Hudson candidates dominate the elections, leaving Pelham underrepresented. On the downside, the smaller but still own-district eligible Litchfield was included in a district with Hudson.

Weare, Wilton & New Ipswich, none of which had their own districts in 2010, got them in Map-a-Thon's maps. While Peterborough lost its own House district, it did get included in a district with Hancock & Antrim, all within the same ConVal School District. Antrim had previously been with Windsor and Hillsborough, despite Windsor and Hillsborough being in the Hillsborough-Deering School District.

Hillsborough Deering & Most ConVal towns are districted together Although Brookline did not get it's own district, it was put in a district in which it shares communities of interest.

Deviations for Hillsborough County ranged from -4.77 to 4.54%, with a 9.31% total deviation.

Merrimack County

One of the biggest improvements for NH House district maps was made in Merrimack County. In 2010, there were 11 violations of the NH Constitution, but in our maps, just six. Three towns, Chichester, Canterbury, Dunbarton, are surrounded by larger, own-district eligible towns, forcing violations. There's nothing we can do without a change in Constitutional rules.

Merrimack receives 44.662 reps and like other counties, the distance from a whole number makes it more challenging.

Good news: Franklin is no longer connected with Northfield (floterial added); Concord is no longer districted with Hopkinton; and New London, Pittsfield, Pembroke, all get their own district. Unfortunately, though, Epson & Allenstown lose their own district

Deviations for Merrimack ranged from -4.42 to 4.74% for a total range of 9.16%.

Rockingham County

Rockingham County saw significant growth 2010 to 2020, surging from 295,223 to 314,176, so its maps have shifted significantly in some areas. It now gets 91.228 state reps.

It also has many own-seat eligible towns, plus has the geographic limitations of the seacoast border.

That said, Map-a-Thon maps show a slight improvement of two additional towns getting dedicated House districts. This includes Atkinson, Plaistow, Hampstead, Sandown & Seabrook. In working for the greater good, Epping & Raymond unfortunately lost their own district in our maps.

Three of Rockingham's violations couldn't be helped under our current Constitutional & court constraints. Newington, Newfields and New Castle are small towns surrounded by larger, own-district eligible towns, and need to be in a district with another town. That creates violations for some of the surrounding towns.

Rockingham County has a deviation range of -4.93 to 4.86%, with a total range of 9.79%.

Strafford County

Map-a-Thon succeeded only with a slight improvement of two additional towns getting their own districts. Disappointing was that we had to leave the district with Strafford and New Durham, which connects in the middle of the woods.

Two “forced” violations are Rollingsford and Madbury, which need to be districted with surrounding larger towns.

Towns which did get their dedicated districts were Milton & Dover, and Barrington, Lee, Rochester & Farmington kept their districts.

Deviations for Strafford are -4.93 to 4.91%,9.84% Total.

Sullivan County, NH

We're sorry to report that Sullivan County is the only county which has more violations for 2020 than in 2010.

Population loss led to a reduction to an apportionment of 12.504 reps, which made it measurable harder to allocate the representation over the towns. Floterials can sometimes help, but did not help in Sullivan.

Where there were two violations for eligible towns not getting their own House district in 2010, these challenges caused one more violation, AND forced us to make districts that would be larger than we would like.

The Map-a-Thon team regrets that we were not able to offer a better map. We look forward to changes, such as a larger deviation, which would allow for better districts. One scenario the team ran used an 11.9% deviation (1.9% over the norm) and it dropped Sullivan County from three violations to zero.

An increase in allowable deviation would help in Sullivan County

Deviations  -4.46 to 1.31   for total 5.77.

Despite what some New Hampshire legislators say publicly, drawing redistricting maps is NOT just a mathematical exercise.   Fair voting maps are nonpartisan and include communities of interest whenever and wherever possible, so that towns which have important connections like school districts get put together. 

Below is the criteria that the 250+ participants in the NH Map-a-Thon considered and approved.   These include required U.S. and NH Constitutional mandates,  court decisions, but also best practices as recommended by the Brennan Center and National Council of State Legislatures.

To see even more detail on the Map-a-Thon's criteria, visit our Redistricting Criteria work Google Sheet.   We encourage you to ask the NH House Special Committee on Redistricting and the NH Senate Redistricting Committee to disclose their criteria, which they have yet to do as of Oct. 23, 2021.

NH Constitution Part 2 [Art.] 9. ...every ten years thereafter, the legislature shall make an apportionment of representatives according to the last general census of the inhabitants of the state taken by authority of the United States or of this state. In making such apportionment, no town, ward or place shall be divided nor the boundaries thereof altered. Amended 1964 providing for equal representation. [Art.] 11. [Small Towns; Representation by Districts.] When the population of any town or ward, according to the last federal census, is within a reasonable deviation from the ideal population for one or more representative seats, the town or ward shall have its own district of one or more representative seats. The apportionment shall not deny any other town or ward membership in one non-floterial representative district. When any town, ward, or unincorporated place has fewer than the number of inhabitants necessary to entitle it to one representative, the legislature shall form those towns, wards, or unincorporated places into representative districts which contain a sufficient number of inhabitants to entitle each district so formed to one or more representatives for the entire district. In forming the districts, the boundaries of towns, wards, and unincorporated places shall be preserved and contiguous. The excess number of inhabitants of district may be added to the excess number of inhabitants of other districts to form at-large or floterial districts conforming to acceptable deviations. The legislature shall form the representative districts at the regular session following every decennial federal census. Amended November 7, 2006 to enable towns with sufficient population to have their own representative district and permits the use of floterial districts.

[Art.] 26. [Senatorial Districts, How Constituted.] And that the state may be equally represented in the senate, the legislature shall divide the state into single member districts, as nearly equal as may be in population, each consisting of contiguous towns, city wards and unincorporated places, without dividing any town, city ward or unincorporated place. The legislature shall form the single member districts at its next session after approval of this article by the voters of the state and thereafter at the regular session following each decennial federal census. Amended 1964 providing for election of senators on basis of population. [Art.] 26-a. [Division of Town, Ward or Place; Senatorial Districts.] Notwithstanding Article 26 or any other article, a law providing for an apportionment to form senatorial districts under Article 26 of Part Second may divide a town, ward or unincorporated place into two or more senatorial districts if such town, ward or place by referendum requests such division. November 22, 1978

[Art.] 65. [Executive Councilor Districts Provided for.] The legislature may, if the public good shall hereafter require it, divide the state into five districts, as nearly equal as may be, governing themselves by the number of population, each district to elect a councilor: And, in case of such division, the manner of the choice shall be conformable to the present mode of election in counties. Amended 1912

U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV, section 2 Article One of the United States Constitution, elections to the House of Representatives are held every two years, and districts are apportioned amongst the states according to their respective numbers. Congressional districts are the 435 areas from which members are elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. ... Each congressional district is to be as equal in population to all other congressional districts in a state as practicable. The Constitution provides for proportional representation in the U.S. House of Representatives and the seats in the House are apportioned based on state population according to the constitutionally mandated Census.

We need you to contact your Nashua Aldermen and Alderwomen about the passing Nashua's version of the NH Resolution for Fair Nonpartisan Redistricting.

Here is a link to a PDF of the resolution being proposed by Alderwoman Jan Schmidt:   Nashua Resolution   Our thanks to Alderwoman Schmidt for bringing this forward. 

Speak or Submit Written Testimony

Two meeting dates are coming up, if you wish to attend or speak to support the resolution.   It appears that Nashua does TV broadcasts of the meetings, but not Zoom or online interactive access.  

Monday, April 5, 2021, 7 p.m.:    Speak, or submit written testimony, to June M. Caron, Chair, Personnel/Administrative Affairs Committee  (If you wish to speak the mic will be open after the opening (best time) and at closing (still fine)    

Tuesday, April 13, 2021, 7:30 p.m.:  Comes before the full Board of Aldermen,  speak or submit written testimony to Donna L. Graham, Legislative Affairs Manager.  (Best time to speak is at the beginning)

Send an Email to Committee Members

Here is sample language for your email, but please use this as a guide and make the email authentically from you.   We suggest you email your alderman/woman, plus the members of the Personnel/Administrative Affairs Committee. 

Dear Alderman/woman _____________:

I just heard that the Board of Alderman will be hearing a resolution supporting fair nonpartisan and transparent redistricting.   Versions of the NH Resolution for Fair Nonpartisan Redistricting have now passed in 44 towns, including the cities of Lebanon, Keene, Franklin, Dover and Durham.

I think this is important because even though the City of Nashua does fair ward districts, the state's track record for fair voting maps isn't as commendable.  There seems to be something about going to serve in Concord that makes our leaders sometimes forget that they work for the people, not the parties.   I'm one voter who thinks that we need a level playing field for this, so that voters can vote and know that the system isn't rigged for one party or the other.    

Please commit the City of Nashua to drawing its own fair districts, and make sure our state legislators and the Special Committee on Redistricting are put on notice, too. 

Thank you for your service to our city!

Your Name

Your Address

Nashua

Other talking points:

• This is a NONPARTISAN resolution that has passed in Red towns and Blue towns
• Partisan data should not be used to manipulate the voting maps
• When voting districts are manipulated, the voters don't get the representation that they should for their area
• Voters in gerrymandered districts get frustrated and apathetic, and give up on voting, because it doesn't matter
• Voting districts should be compact, have "communities of interest" like school districts, neighborhoods, or economies
• Some of our elected officials say there isn't any gerrymandering, but not all gerrymandering has squiggly lines!   Look at Hudson, 24,000 population & Pelham, 13,000 population, combined in one district, but each should have its own representatives. 
• All the voters want -- of any party or independent -- is a fair, nonpartisan and transparent process.

Nashua Board of Aldermen, as of March 2021

* = Members of the Personnel/Administrative Affairs Committee, where Nashua's Resolution for Fair Nonpartisan Redistricting will be heard.

*JUNE M. CARON, Ward 7, [email protected]

*BEN CLEMONS , Alderman at Large,  [email protected]

RICHARD A. DOWD , Ward 2, [email protected]

LINDA HARRIOTT-GATHRIGHT, Ward 9, [email protected]

ELIZABETH LU, Ward 6, [email protected]

ERNEST A. JETTE , Ward 5, [email protected]

*SHOSHANNA KELLY , Alderwoman at Large, [email protected]

PATRICIA KLEE, Ward 3, [email protected]

BRANDON MICHAEL LAWS, Alderman at Large, [email protected]

*THOMAS LOPEZ , Ward 4, [email protected]

MICHAEL B. O'BRIEN, SR , VP Board of Aldermen, [email protected]

*SKIP CLEAVER , Ward 8, [email protected]

JAN SCHMIDT , Ward 1, [email protected] ****Sponsor of the NH Resolution for Fair Nonpartisan Redistricting****

DAVID C. TENCZA , Alderman at Large,  [email protected]

LORI WILSHIRE, President, Board of Aldermen, [email protected]

Go to the Registration page

Go to the Program page

Go to the Action page

Our speakers and organizers have prepared additional materials for you if you'd like to explore our topics on redistricting and gerrymandering in more detail:

Hundreds of brave men and women marched for their freedom to vote in Selma -- and were brutally attacked for doing it.   We're asking for just a few minutes to take some simple yet powerful actions that can help in the fight for voting rights, both around the country and right here in New Hampshire. 

Action #1 - Urgent - Oppose Voter Suppression Bills

By tomorrow, Monday, March 8, 8:30 AM - Register your Opposition to these anti-voting rights bills being heard in NH House Election Law TOMORROW.  These include efforts to end same-day registration, which disproportionately affects lower-income voters, students, and communities of color.   It takes about 90 seconds per bill once you get the hang of it. 

Here's the URL to log in: http://gencourt.state.nh.us/.../remotetestimony/default.aspx

- On the calendar when you log in, choose Monday, March 8th

- Choose the committee: Election Law

- Choose the bill by number

- You are "A Member of the Public" and "Representing Yourself"

- Note Open Democracy Action's positions below

- Say No to Speak to the bill, unless you are motivated to testify live to the committee.

- You'll be asked to confirm your position and information

- At the end, you'll be asked if you want to sign for additional bills.

9:30 a.m. HB 429 requires students to prove they have registered to vote in NH to obtain in-state tuition rates.  But then it removes college IDs as a form of identification to qualify under the Secretary of State’s guidance on student voting.  Open Democracy Action opposes this bill 

9:45 a.m. HB 362 repeals current “domicile” definitions for students voting in New Hampshire, in a direct assault on student access to the polls in New Hampshire.  Open Democracy Action opposes this bill

10:15 a.m. HB 554 also attempts to define domicile as it pertains to temporary residents, specifying students, particularly those who have domicile in the state, but are away for the pandemic.   “A student of any institution of learning may lawfully claim domicile for voting purposes in the New Hampshire town or city in which he or she [lives] maintains a physical presence while attending such institution of learning if such student's claim of domicile otherwise meets the requirements of RSA 654:1, I. “ Open Democracy Action opposes this bill

10:30 a.m. HB 531-FN-L ends the current same-day registration practice of allowing a voter to sign an sworn affidavit, subject to providing documents such as a ID, citizenship or proof of domicile within 30 days of voting and being subject to investigation by the NH Attorney General.   In those cases, the voter is allowed to vote.  HB 531 instead allows the voter only to cast a “provisional” ballot, where the voter must return on election day with adequate documentation, or the vote will not be counted.   The number of voters who use the current affidavit is very low statewide, and does not justify disenfranchising someone whose birth certificate is at mom & dad’s in California.   Open Democracy Action opposes this bill

11:00 a.m. HB 535 repeals the qualified voter affidavit, which would prohibit voters without the necessary domicile, citizenship or identification documents from voting. Currently voters without documentation that election officials consider to be qualified voters can fill out an affidavit, then vote as normal, but with the understanding that they will have to produce the necessary documents within 30 days.  Open Democracy Action opposes this bill 

Action #2 - Write a postal mail Thank You note to your members of Congress

Both Reps. Kuster and Pappas were co-sponsors of House Resolution 1, the For the People Act, as were all but one Democrat, and voted last Wednesday when the bill passed in the U.S. House.   Please thank them for their support of H.R. 1, and express your support for H.R. 4, the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act which will come before them later this year.    H.R. 1 cracks down on voter suppression tactics being perpetrated around the United States. (See details below in Action #3)  H.R. 1 has dozens and dozens of other important democracy reforms as well, including voting as a national holiday, efforts to get money out of politics, and online voter registration.    H.R. 4 restores the Voting Rights Act, repealed in 2013.  This will help protect the voting rights being attacked by over 250 bills trying to deliberately put up barriers to our voting freedoms, particularly for voters of color. 

Action #3 - Write to your U.S. Senators to support S. 1 & H.R. 4

Senate Bill 1, or S. 1, is the Senate's version of H.R. 1.   Write a postal letter to Sens. Hassan and Shaheen asking for their support on S.1 when it comes before the Senate in April, and tell your story about why S. 1 would help NH's voter.    

S. 1 & H.R. 1: 

• Improve Access – H.R. 1 expands access to the ballot box by taking aim at institutional barriers to voting, including cumbersome voter registration systems, disenfranchisement and limited voting hours. H.R. 1 will create automatic voter registration across the country, ensure that individuals who have completed felony sentences have their full voting rights restored, expand early voting and enhance absentee voting, simplify voting by mail, reduce long lines and wait times for voters and modernize America’s voting system.
   
• Promote Integrity – H.R. 1 commits Congress to build the record necessary to restore the Voting Rights Act, as embodied by the House-passed H.R. 4. It also commits Congress to deliver full congressional voting rights and self-government for the residents of the District of Columbia, which only statehood can provide, prohibits voter roll purges like those seen in Ohio, Georgia and elsewhere and ends partisan gerrymandering to prevent politicians from picking their voters.
   
• Ensure Security – H.R. 1 ensures that American elections are decided by American voters, without interference, by enhancing federal support for voting system security, particularly with paper ballots and also by increasing oversight of election system vendors and by requiring the development of a national strategy to protect U.S. democratic institutions.
   

END THE DOMINANCE OF BIG MONEY IN OUR POLITICS
 

• Guarantee Disclosure – H.R. 1 shines a light on dark money in politics by upgrading online political ad disclosure and requiring all organizations involved in political activity to disclose their large donors. H.R. 1 also breaks the so-called ‘nesting-doll’ sham that allows big-money contributors and special interests to hide the true funding source of their political spending.
   
• Empower Citizens – H.R. 1 strengthens the political power of hardworking Americans by creating a multiple matching system for small donations. This innovative, 21st-century system of citizen-owned elections will break the stranglehold of special interests on Congress and lay the groundwork for an agenda that meets the needs of the American people. The voluntary multiple matching system will be completely paid for by a new surcharge on corporate law breakers and wealthy tax cheats. That way, the individuals and corporations who break the public trust – like Wells Fargo, which created fake bank accounts for unwitting customers, or Volkswagen, which lied about harmful carbon emissions from its vehicles, or Facebook, which violates Americans’ privacy, or Purdue Pharma, which fueled the opioid crisis – bear the cost of building a more just and equitable democracy. H.R. 1 also reaffirms Congress’ authority to regulate money in politics, pushing back on the Supreme Court’s wrong-headed Citizens United decision.
   
• Strengthen Oversight – H.R. 1 ensures that there are cops on the campaign finance beat that will enforce the laws on the books. H.R. 1 tightens rules on super PACs and restructures the Federal Election Commission to break the gridlock and enhance its enforcement mechanisms. It also repeals Mitch McConnell’s riders that prevent government agencies from requiring commonsense disclosure of political spending.
   

ENSURE PUBLIC SERVANTS WORK FOR THE PUBLIC INTEREST
 

• Fortify Ethics Law – H.R. 1 breaks the influence economy in Washington and increases accountability by expanding conflict of interest law and divestment requirements, slowing the revolving door, preventing Members of Congress from serving on corporate boards and requiring presidents to disclose their tax returns.
   
• Impose Greater Ethics Enforcement – H.R. 1 gives teeth to federal ethics oversight by overhauling the Office of Government Ethics, closing loopholes for lobbyists and foreign agents, ensuring watchdogs have sufficient resources to enforce the law and creating a code of ethics for the Supreme Court.

If you would like  to view the full Bloody Sunday in Selma event, you may do so on our YouTube page.

Thank you for visiting to learn more about New Hampshire's redistricting process, and the NH Resolution for Fair Nonpartisan Redistricting.

The Basics of Redistricting & Gerrymandering

In short, redistricting is an every-ten-year process that takes the U.S. Census data, and reapportions the population into more-or-less equal voting districts for state elected positions like the Executive Council, State Senate, and State House.  It also includes the two U.S. House of Representatives seats for NH, as well as for county commissioner. 

By current state law, the NH House is responsible for most of the redistricting, with the NH Senate doing the Congressional districts.  The process is supposed to be fair, nonpartisan, and transparent to the public.    Fair voting districts are geographic areas of close to equal population.  Voters in those districts should have something in common, such as a school district, perhaps a lake, or a common economy.   Our legislature appoints a "special committee" which reflects the percentage of legislators that each party got elected.  That committee draws the voting maps, has public hearings and submits them to the full legislature for a vote.

Voting maps should NOT be drawn on the basis or race, religion, ethnicity or political party, or between areas which have nothing in common, or perhaps competing interests.  When maps are drawn using this data are often are manipulated to cheat, and control the outcome of elections for the party in charge at the time.  The graphic at right shows how this is done, called "gerrymandering."   

What Happened in 2011

In 2011, a legislature hostile to fair, nonpartisan redistricting drafted new voting districts which gerrymandered dozens of NH towns, as detailed in the articles below.   The Special Committee had no real part in the process;  the maps were in fact drawn by a small group of legislators out of the sight of the public, using a software that was kept hidden from the public and even Democratic members of the committee.   When public hearings were held around the state, there were no maps shown to the public or most state legislators.  When state rep district maps were finally available, the NH House had only one week to review them, and the public only had 24 hours!   There was little transparency in the process.

- Concord Monitor, Dec. 15, 2011:  Politics-Election Redistricting plan unveiled 

- New Hampshire Public Radio, June 7, 2017:   How Gerrymandering Skewed the 2016 Elections

- NH Union Leader- Coming soon

- NH Supreme Court:   Brief by NH Senator David Pierce

- League of Women Voters in the NH Union Leader:  NH Voices: Liz Tentarelli -- Learning from the past

Gerrymandering Could Get Worse in 2021

In 2021, there's a very good chance that this gerrymandering could get worse, not better, unless voters speak up and make sure that legislators know that the voters demand a FAIR, NONPARTISAN and TRANSPARENT process.   Without the proposed permanent solution of an "independent redistricting commission," which passed the legislature with bipartisan votes but was vetoed twice, we again are depending on the good consciences of our state legislators.   

Passing the NH Resolution for Fair Nonpartisan Redistricting

While we would prefer to push for a permanent independent redistricting commission, that is unlikely to happen in time for the 2021 redistricting.   So instead we are passing the NH Resolution for Fair, Nonpartisan Redistricting in as many towns as possible.

Read the sample Town Meeting/SB 2 Vote version

Read the sample City/Town Council version

Between Dec 2020 and early February 2021, volunteers working with Open Democracy and other organizations around the state will be proposing "petitioned warrant articles" in 100 town-meeting & SB 2 towns around the state.   In cities, volunteers will be working with city councils and boards of aldermen.    In both types of government, we will be asking for a non-binding resolution to be sent to our state elected officials.  We're asking a town's voters to:

• Demand fairness and transparency in the process of drawing new maps
• Require that maps be drawn with no favoritism to one party or the other
• Make sure that the mapping process happens in public meetings
• That towns of 3300 citizens or larger be given their own state representative districts, rather than being split with other towns.
• And that the board of selectmen from that town communicate in writing the wishes of the town to the State and Federal delegations.

We have more details on our Town Meeting "How-To" page, or if you live in a city or a town with a town council, our Council Resolution page, but this initiative is designed to use our local town warrants to inform local voters on the evils of gerrymandering, and pressure our legislature to put party politics aside and create nonpartisan voting districts for state representative, NH senator, executive council, and U.S. Congress.   The voters want fairness, but politicians want power.   As a voter, it should be YOU calling the shots!

If you have further questions about the NH Resolution for Fair Nonpartisan Redistricting in your town, or want to pass a resolution in your town, contact Open Democracy's deputy director, Brian Beihl, for more information.

What better way to be involved in the integrity of our electoral system than becoming an election official in your community!    These positions range from a Supervisor of the Checklist, which require a day-long commitment on election day and town meeting,  and occasional preparatory meetings throughout the rest of the year, to Town or City Clerk, which are often part time or full time paid positions. Please NOTE this might be different in your town or city. 

Local Election Official Job Descriptions

Supervisor of the Checklist

• Determine if an applicant is legally qualified to vote,
• Update the Checklist of registered voters with new voter registrations and any status changes,
• Maintain and update the voter files,
• Attend periodic training sessions held in Concord,
• Hold periodic mandatory supervisor sessions and post notices in advance, and
• Educate voters about any changes to voting procedure or law. On Election Day, supervisors are to be present before, during and after elections to set up, register voters, facilitate party changes, do data entry, and tally numbers required by the Secy. of State’s Office. Following an election, supervisors enter any new voter applications and status changes into the database and scan checklists to record voter history.

City Clerks
● City Clerks are appointed by City Council and are typically paid positions
● The mission of the City Clerk's Office is to efficiently meet all statutory obligations with respect to elections, vital records, and City Council.
● The City Clerk's Office is responsible for the preservation and management of all vital events occurring within the city. Those vital events include births, marriages, and deaths. In addition to vital records, the office records all official documents of the city.
● The office conducts and preserves the integrity of all local, state, and federal elections.
● The office is responsible for the preparation of all City Council agendas, minutes, and official
notices.

Town Clerks
● All Town Clerks are Elected for a one year or three year term, depending upon which option the town voted to enact, and must live within the town in which they serve.  These are typically paid positions.
● The Town Clerk appoints the Deputy Town Clerk and the appointment is subject to approval of the Selectmen.
● The Deputy Town Clerk must also be a resident of the town and able to perform all the duties of the Town Clerk
● The Town Clerk is the chief election official, is responsible for keeping all town records, certifying actions of the Selectmen and other town officials, making official reports, collecting fees, carrying out specific mandated laws and many other municipal related duties.

Supervisors of the Checklist
Three Supervisors of the Checklist are elected with staggered terms of six years to serve the voters.
● Duties include:
  ○ Determining if an applicant is legally qualified to vote,
  ○ Updating the Checklist of registered voters with new voter registrations and any status changes
  ○ Maintaining and updating the voter files 
  ○ Attending periodic training sessions held in Concord
  ○ Holding periodic mandatory supervisor sessions and post notices in advance, and
  ○ Educating voters about any changes to voting procedure or law.
● On Election Day, supervisors are to be present before, during and after elections to set up, register voters, facilitate party changes, do data entry, and tally numbers required by the Secy. of State’s Office.
● Following an election, supervisors enter any new voter applications and status changes into the database and scan checklists to record voter history.

Moderators
● Elected for a two year term at the annual meeting, in towns every even numbered year, in cities every other regular city election.
● The moderator is the chief election officer in charge of the polls at the ward level.
● The moderator is under the direction of the city clerk who is the city’s chief election officer.
● It is the responsibility of the moderator to make certain that all the election officers are available on the day of the election and that each is familiar with their respective duties for the day.
● The moderator is required to have the polling place open and ready to accept voters at the prescribed time
● During the election day, the moderator is charged with maintaining order at the polling place and ensuring that proper documentation is posted
● In towns, moderators also run the town meeting. They stand at the front of the room, welcome voters, and explain meeting protocols

Selectmen
• Town Selectman: Elected for a three year term at the annual meeting.
• Ward Selectmen: Elected for two-year terms at the biennial municipal election, every odd-numbered year.
• There are three elected selectmen per ward.
• The selectmen may be responsible for choosing the polling place. They report directly to the moderator.
• Their primary duty is to maintain the checklist and to aid the voters in the election process.
• They must be signatories on warrants and most of the election reports and are, therefore, responsible for the proper counting of the election results (including tallies and absentee counting) and providing the Ward or Town Clerk with their results.
• They are responsible for the orderly flow of voters through the polling place and to ensure that the
polls are open and functioning properly.
• They are also responsible for making appointments of ballot inspectors if the two major parties fail
to appoint within the required timeframe.

Ward Clerks
• Elected for a two-year term at the biennial municipal election, every odd-numbered year.
• The ward clerk reports to the moderator.
• The primary duty of the clerk shall be to administer and prepare the documentation required at the polling place. This includes not only the election return and tally sheets and associated reports, but will also include such documentation as poll workers time sheets, payroll records, W-4 forms, etc.
• The ward clerk must pick up the ward supplies and documentation package at the city clerk’s office before reporting to the polling place.
• The ward clerk shall also aid any voters who may need assistance in the polling area. The clerk will assist the moderator in the course of managing the polling place.
• Other duties require the clerk, at the direction of the city clerk and the Secretary of State, to require the selectmen to sign and post warrants announcing the upcoming election.

Ballot Inspector/ Ballot Clerk

Ballot Inspectors (also known as Ballot Clerks) are community members just like you interested in maintaining the integrity of our elections. As a Ballot Inspector, you would serve in one of the many roles needed at the polls - marking the checklist, handing out ballots, helping voters in need at the ballot booths, receiving ballots at the box, and more. These positions are two year terms, serve for all state and local elections, and come with a small monetary stipend for your service.
 

In order for us to efficiently get you all relevant information, please tell us what types of emails communications you would like to receive. 

If you previously "opted out" either intentionally or accidentally, please go here for instructions or help on rejoining our membership list. 

Carol Shea-Porter, Chair. – former member of Congress (D-NH); politics and history teacher; founder of a non-profit social service agency

John Broderick – former Chief Justice of the New Hampshire Supreme Court; former Executive Director of the Rudman Center at University of New Hampshire Law School

Brad Cook – partner and past President of Sheehan Phinney Law Firm; Chair of the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission

Lew Feldstein – past President of the NH Charitable Foundation; co-author of Better Together: Restoring the American Community

Paul Hodes – former member of Congress (D-NH); attorney; member, National Council on the Arts; founder of the Economic Innovation Institute

Joe Magruder – former News Editor, Associated Press of New Hampshire

Lillye Ramos Spooner – Director of Operations for Greater Manchester AIDS Project; former member of the NH Commission on the Status of Women

Stephen Reno – Executive Director of Leadership New Hampshire; former Chancellor of the University System of New Hampshire

John Rauh – former President of Americans for Campaign Reform, now part of Issue One; former Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate

Jim Rubens – entrepreneur; former Republican candidate for U.S. Senate; former New Hampshire state Senator

Betty Tamposi – Assistant Secretary of State under George H.W. Bush; as a state Representative, was Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee; former member of the Board of Governors of the University of New Hampshire

Dan Weeks  – co-owner of ReVision Energy; former Executive Director of Open Democracy

** Affiliations listed for identification purposes only. Advisory Board members serve in their individual capacities.