Government Campaigning, Incumbents above the law, Missing Ballots, and a DOJ That Looked Away.

The New Hampshire Department of Justice’s December 8, 2025 letter responding to election law complaints regarding the March 2025 Hampton town election is nothing short of infuriating—and exposes a system designed to protect insiders, not election integrity.

One complaint involved the acting tax collector and an appointed town clerk employee openly campaigning for themselves from inside their town offices from September 2024 through March 2025. These acts occurred before either individual was elected, yet Senior Assistant Attorney General O’Donnell absurdly claims the electioneering statute does not apply because it excludes elected officials. Under this warped interpretation, town halls across New Hampshire are apparently fair game for self-promotion—granting incumbents and insiders a grotesque, state-sanctioned advantage over any challenger.

Another complaint documented an incumbent selectman candidate campaigning and soliciting voters outside the designated electioneering zone on Election Day, witnessed directly by her opponent—me. The DOJ’s response? Their representatives “didn’t see it,” the accused denied it, and therefore—miraculously—it never happened. Case closed. No investigation. No witness interviews. No effort whatsoever. The message is clear: if the DOJ doesn’t feel like looking, reality simply doesn’t matter. And let’s be honest—had that accusation been against me, the

outcome would have been very different.

A third complaint revealed three different ballot totals, proving that no reconciliation occurred before and after the election. (Current NH election law does not require ballot reconciliation). The DOJ in their response hides behind that failure with a series of hollow excuses. The real scandal is this: New Hampshire has no policy, no procedure, and no safeguards for ballot reconciliation at all. None. And the DOJ appears perfectly content with that gaping hole in election accountability.

Taken together, the Attorney General’s responses are dismissive, defensive, and deeply troubling. This wasn’t oversight—it was institutional indifference. The DOJ didn’t investigate, didn’t question, and didn’t protect voters. Instead, it shielded incumbents, excused misconduct, and normalized systemic failure. These responses are not just inadequate—but repulsive.