April 728x90TopBanner

Letter Submission

To submit a letter to the editor, please email us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Letters must contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published. We do not run anonymous letters. Local issues get priority, as do local writers. We encourage writers to keep letters to no more than 400 words, but will accept longer letters to be run on a space-available basis. Editors reserve the right to edit letters for spelling, grammar, punctuation, excessive length and unsuitable content.


2 selectmen wouldn't spend $72 to correct Voter's Guide problem

To The Daily Sun,

Dear Gilmanton residents:

I would like to make a few corrections to the article in The Daily Sun dated Feb. 24 (Gilmanton selectmen adjust voters guide).
The Gilmanton selectmen did not adjust the voters guide. The completed guide was never discussed by the Board of Selectmen and never corrected by them. The guide published by the town and posted on the website needed to be corrected before the deliberative session. It was not!
I asked town counsel to look at the language in the guide concerning bio-solids. Town counsel asked me to get full board approval to have it reviewed. I called the town administrator to ask Chairman Hatch and Selectman Jean for approval and their response was "no"!
The same question, concerning the language, was asked by the Planning Board chairman. Counsel recommended removing the last two lines and town staff did that.
Flash back to the voters guide. Remember that Chairman Hatch and Selectmen Jean said they would not spend any money reviewing it. According to the Town administrator, it cost the town $72. Seventy-two dollars.
What is the cost to the town when in the voters guide there is a problem and two selectmen will not correct it? What is the cost to the town when a handout, full of inaccuracies, is published explaining why our tax rate is so high. Plenty!
Just before the deliberative session there was a problem with the GYRL petitioned warrant article. A special meeting was called by Chairman Hatch. On the Saturday morning of deliberative session, the Board of Selectmen met with the GYRL, Budget Committee representatives, town moderator and members of the public. Minutes are available. I supported what needed to be done.

Next year, I think the Board of Selectmen should review the voters guide before it is published.

Don Guarino

Gilmanton Selectman

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 579

'Superdelegates' invented to multiply power of Democrat insiders

To The Daily Sun,

In a letter to the New Hampshire Union Leader, former New Hampshire Democratic Party Chair Kathy Sullivan defended "superdelegates."

Sullivan practices law for property owners and real estate interests. She also works "in matters involving election law, campaign strategy and messaging." Evidently, "Confessions of a Super Delegate" is "messaging." See http://www.wadleighlaw.com/nh-lawyers/kathleen-n-sullivan/

"Superdelegates" violate "One Man (Person), One Vote", the spirit of all universal suffrage movements. The phrase is in Supreme Court rulings applying the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution to redistricting decisions (Reynolds v. Sims 1964). When one "superdelegate" vote equals thousands of others, we have peculiar gerrymandering, based not on geography but on party positions.

Sullivan claims "superdelegates" never went against the popular vote. But "superdelegates" began in 1984, possibly pushing Mondale over Hart. They could affect a close race. The DNC favors Clinton, with most "superdelegates" for Clinton. Millions would notice any "superdelegate" putsch. "Superdelegate" success might be their undoing.

If "superdelegates" cannot sway elections, why (do they) exist? Why does Sullivan bother? The "superdelegate" was invented in 1984 to multiply insider power when the Democratic Party overturned the McGovern-Frazer Commission work after 1968 which enhanced the popular vote against party insider influences.

On Feb. 23, Clinton and Sanders had 51 elected delegates each. However, Clinton had 451 "superdelegates" and Sanders just 19. Should insider votes count more than ours?

Defenders like Sullivan should be convinced to abandon "superdelegate" status and the mechanism should be abolished.

David Ecklein

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 450