I’ve read enough opinion pieces by establishment men asserting that New Hampshire can’t afford a change in our secretary of state. The pieces praise Gardner’s ability to run his office outside the usual partisan divide, and his skill at preserving our first-in-the-nation primary.
No one has presented any evidence that Colin Van Ostern is engaged in a partisan process, or that he lacks the skills needed to maintain the N.H. tradition of holding the first presidential primary in the nation. Instead, there have been subtle charges of politicizing the process, as if it isn’t a political process already. Van Ostern is criticized for raising money for his campaign. What political campaign doesn’t require financial support? Maybe running for secretary of state, if you’ve had that position for 42 years and have plenty of powerful men willing to say you’re entitled to keep it.
Here’s what a woman new to the electoral process thinks. As the fiscal agent for my husband’s campaign for state representative, I appreciated Van Ostern’s proactive help navigating the campaign finance reporting system. It’s not easy to use or understand and malfunctioned during two of the reporting periods. I never heard anything from the secretary of state’s office about training or an orientation for using the system. I’ve been unable to access information on PAC funding because the website has a confusing and ineffective search function.
Van Ostern worked hard to educate candidates about the election process and present his ideas for policy changes. His Free & Fair New Hampshire is explicitly nonpartisan and outlines smart moves to ensure our state has clean elections that make voting accessible to every eligible voter.
So why all this posturing about the secretary of state’s race? It appears to be a tactic to push back against change by the people who have always been in charge. Are they trying to preserve a status quo that favors those already in power? That would explain Gardner’s decision to support Republican efforts to narrow voting eligibility and to join President Donald Trump’s commission to investigate voter fraud that doesn’t exist.
A recent column cited a 2017 poll that found 33 percent of New Hampshire citizens believe voter fraud is a problem as a justification for Gardner’s decision to join the commission. Joining an effort that arose out of Trump’s falsehoods about voter fraud gave legitimacy to those claims, rather than counter them. Gardner could have far more effectively addressed the lie that thousands of people from out of state came to New Hampshire in buses to vote by clearly stating, as the person in charge of elections, that those claims were false.
A key position in Van Ostern’s platform is “supporting creation of a nonpartisan, independent redistricting commission that favors neither political party.” No policy change is more important to me. I watched too many excellent candidates lose this election cycle because of Republican gerrymandering that makes it close to impossible for Democrats to win in my area of the state. I want an election system that supports democracy, not one political party.
Choice in elected officials is fundamental to democracy. To me the choice is clear. Van Ostern has clearly stated goals for strengthening our election system and has outlined innovative ideas to modernize the secretary of state’s office. The only real argument I’ve found in the columns by establishment political figures supporting Gardner is that we shouldn’t change our secretary of state because we shouldn’t change.
The majority of voters in New Hampshire voted for change. Carry that change forward by letting your state senator and representatives know you want them to elect Van Ostern. It’s time for fresh energy and new ideas. That includes the secretary of state’s office.
(Grace Mattern is a poet and writer who lives in Northwood. She blogs at gracemattern.com.)