Public confidence in local government depends on transparency, consistency, and adherence to the laws that govern elections. As Hooksett approaches its local vote, recent discussions have highlighted the importance of understanding and complying with New Hampshire’s election statutes. All procedures related to New Hampshire elections are contained in the state’s statutes, known as RSAs, which are available for public review online through the New Hampshire General Court website at gc.nh.gov.
Transparency is important and that is why we are covering the candidates and their actions during this race. During this election cycle, campaign signs distributed by myself, Antonio “Tony” LaCasse, I did not initially include the legally required “Paid for by” disclosure language required under New Hampshire election law. State statute requires that political advertising clearly state who paid for the communication and the address for that candidate or the political committee that paid for the signs.
After I had become aware of the requirement, the signs remained displayed without modification for a period of time. Additionally, some signs were placed in roadway medians on metal posts, which is not permitted under state law, which I became aware of after the fact as well. Those signs were later removed once the placement issue was identified. New signs were subsequently printed that include the required “Paid for by Antonio LaCasse” language. It should be noted that the address was not added to those signs. I did not fully review the full RSA, so another mistake was made and I do apologize for not doing my proper due diligence as it related to this RSA. The political world is new to me and I am learning as I go and I am looking for grace as I navigate this new path. I do believe in full transparency and that is why I have published this piece so the voters know.
It also states in NH election law that in order to place political signage in public right of ways such as on Hooksett Rd or any other public roadway where the state or town own the roadway/ROW, permission of the state or town must be provided in order to place these signs in these public right of ways. At this time, it is uncertain if any candidates have received permission to place political signage along public rights of way. The law is provided for your ease. RSA 664:17 Placement and Removal of Political Advertising. - No political advertising shall be placed on or affixed to any public property including highway rights-of-way or private property without the owner’s consent….Political advertising may be placed within state-owned rights-of-way as long as the advertising does not obstruct the safe flow of traffic and the advertising is placed with the consent of the owner of the land over which the right-of-way passes.
A separate statutory question was brought to the attention of The Hooksett Bridge on Sunday, March 1, concerning candidate Chau Kelley and the filing for two elected positions. The concern referenced RSA 669:7, which addresses incompatibility of offices. The matter was raised by School Board Member Wayne Goertel, who is also a candidate for School Board and is running against Chau Kelley, Todd Lizotte and Jillian Godbout.
Throughout the day on Sunday, March 1, discussions took place between The Hooksett Bridge Publisher/Owner Tony LaCasse, Town Clerk Karina Towne, Town Moderator Todd Lizotte, and Mrs. Kelley regarding the interpretation and application of that statute.
Town Clerk Karina Towne was asked to provide a public statement regarding the incompatibility RSA for budget committee and school board as it relates to Kelley’s filing within her office. She declined to comment at this time.
Town Moderator Todd Lizotte, who is also a candidate for School Board provided the following written statement outlining his interpretation of the law concerning candidacy and incompatibility:
“New Hampshire election statutes are intended to provide structure and clarity for those who step forward to serve, not to discourage participation. In relation to candidacy and elections
I offer the following clarity.
RSA 669:7, I provides that no person shall at the same time hold two or more incompatible offices. The operative word is ‘hold,’ meaning the prohibition applies to simultaneously serving in incompatible offices — not to filing for or running for them.
Candidate filing procedures and eligibility at the time of filing are governed by RSA 655 and 669:19, under which a person may file for more than one office and may appear on the ballot for more than one office, even if those offices could later be determined to be incompatible.
Accordingly, RSA 669:7 does not operate as a candidacy restriction or filing-period disqualification.
The statute becomes relevant only after an election, when an individual would assume office, typically upon taking the oath pursuant to RSA 669:9. If a person is elected to two offices that are legally incompatible, the individual must choose which office to accept before simultaneously holding both. RSA 669:7, I-a functions as the post-election mechanism governing that situation: acceptance of one incompatible office operates to vacate the other.
In plain terms, RSA 669:7 addresses dual service, not dual candidacy, and provides a statutory remedy after the election rather than a barrier to filing.
This process has been utilized in Hooksett within this context, in 2020.”
Candidate Chau Kelley provided the following statement in response:
“Thank you for reaching out and for giving me the opportunity to clarify this matter.
I disclosed my intention to run for both the School Board and the Budget Committee at the town meeting and during the candidate forum. In our town, it is not uncommon for candidates to seek more than one position, particularly when the roles are distinct and serve different functions within our local government.
I appreciate your attention to this and am happy to discuss further if helpful.”
As with many statutes, interpretation of election law can vary among officials, attorneys, and citizens. RSA 669:7 and all other provisions within New Hampshire’s election law framework are subject to interpretation, and those interpretations may differ from person to person. Voters are encouraged to consult the full text of the relevant statutes themselves through the New Hampshire General Court’s online RSA database at gc.nh.gov and draw their own conclusions about how the laws apply.
Informed voters are empowered voters. Reviewing the statutes directly allows residents to evaluate the language and its application independently. Transparency in government begins not only with disclosure of actions, but with access to the law itself.
In the interest of full transparency for voters, it should also be noted that Keith Judge, a candidate for Town Council, serves as the Business Agent for Teamsters Local 633. Teamsters Local 633 represents and negotiates collective bargaining agreements for several municipal bargaining units in Hooksett, including police personnel, Department of Public Works employees, and mid-management employees. The Mid-Management Union contract and Police Contract are two of the agreements scheduled to go before voters on March 10. New Hampshire state law does not prohibit labor union representatives from serving on town councils or select boards; however, voters may wish to consider professional roles and affiliations when evaluating candidates, particularly when matters involving collective bargaining agreements come before the governing body.
Transparency, election law,
and public accountability in Hooksett
