relating to ballot reconciliation. Providing that the state adopt certain provisions and penalties relative to the ballot reconciliation process.
CACR 31 is a proposed constitutional amendment that would add a new article to the New Hampshire Constitution governing election administration and ballot reconciliation. The resolution would require all ballots to be hand counted and serial-numbered, with perforated matching tabs, chain-of-custody logs, and statewide tracking by the secretary of state. It also imposes detailed rules for ballot storage, retention, public viewing by registered voters, annual reporting, poll worker selection, polling place limits, and post-election audits. The proposal further references compliance with Presidential Executive Order 14248 on election integrity.
If adopted, the amendment would constitutionalize a broad set of election procedures now governed by statute, administrative practice, or local election rules. It would require municipalities and election officials to retain ballots and records for 60 months, restrict removal of original ballots from storage, and authorize public inspection and recording under specified conditions. It would also direct the secretary of state to provide serial-numbered ballots, publish tracking findings, and oversee audits and training, while limiting polling locations to 5,000 lawful voters and selecting some poll workers at random from the voter checklist.
This resolution would significantly alter New Hampshire election law by embedding detailed ballot handling, storage, audit, and counting requirements directly into the state constitution. It would expand the secretary of state’s responsibilities, impose new duties on moderators and clerks, and create enforceable constitutional standards for ballot reconciliation, chain of custody, retention, and public access to election materials. Because it is a constitutional amendment, these rules would supersede ordinary statutory procedures and be much harder to change in the future.
The available context shows the bill in the Election Law Committee with no recorded votes or transcript discussion, so there is no documented committee sentiment in the materials provided. Based on the text alone, the proposal appears strongly aligned with election-integrity concerns and is framed as a transparency and security measure. Its detailed and prescriptive nature suggests it is intended to appeal to supporters of stricter election controls, but the record provided does not show whether it has bipartisan support or organized opposition.
The main points of contention are likely to be the bill’s sweeping mandates and their practical effects on election administration. Requiring hand counts, serial-numbered ballots, long retention periods, public access to ballots and records, and random selection of poll workers could raise concerns about cost, feasibility, privacy, and administrative burden for towns and cities. The proposal’s references to citizen audits, out-of-state “voter integrity experts,” and compliance with a presidential executive order may also be controversial, especially among those who view the amendment as overly rigid or as federalizing or politicizing state election procedures.