Jeremy Olson & a. v. Town of Grafton
168 N.H. 563
| N.H. | 2016Background
- Town of Grafton selectboard placed 36 warrant articles on the March 10, 2015 ballot, including 20 citizen‑petitioned articles advanced by Olson and co‑plaintiffs.
- Selectboard unanimously voted to print the phrase “The Selectmen do not recommend this article” beneath each of the plaintiffs’ 20 petition articles on the official ballot, and later retained the notation after public concern.
- Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief shortly before the annual meeting; trial court denied relief, concluding RSA 32:5, V‑a authorized the selectboard’s action. Plaintiffs did not seek to invalidate the meeting’s votes on appeal.
- The plaintiffs’ ballot articles were overwhelmingly defeated at the annual meeting; plaintiffs appealed arguing the selectboard lacked statutory authority and had violated state constitutional voting rights.
- Supreme Court found the appeal not moot (capable of repetition yet evading review), interpreted the statutes de novo, and reviewed legislative history to resolve ambiguity in RSA 32:5, V‑a.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether selectboard exceeded authority under RSA 39:3 by adding recommendations to petitioned articles | Olson: recommendations are more than “minor textual changes” forbidden by RSA 39:3 | Town: recommendations are not textual changes to the petitioned language | Court: recommendations did not constitute forbidden textual changes; RSA 39:3 argument rejected |
| Whether RSA 32:5, V‑a authorizes selectboard to place recommendations or vote tallies next to any warrant article | Olson: V‑a limited to budget matters and authorizes only numerical tallies, not recommendations for non‑budget articles | Town: plain language of V‑a allows recording tallies for “any warrant articles” and the governing body may print tallies and recommendations | Court: V‑a ambiguous; legislative history shows “any” applies to all warrant articles and, to avoid an illogical result, V‑a authorizes printing both vote tallies and the recommendation next to affected warrant articles |
| Whether inclusion of recommendations without numerical tallies violated RSA 32:5, V‑a | Olson: V‑a does not permit recommendations, so their inclusion (and lack of tally) violates statute | Town: V‑a allows governing body to print tallies and recommendations when warrant not required by legislative body to do so | Court: did not decide whether lack of numerical tally violated V‑a; held V‑a empowers selectboard to include recommendation and tally (though noted question of violation not before court) |
| Whether selectboard’s action violated Part I, Article 11 (free and equal elections) | Olson: printing recommendations unlawfully interfered with free and equal right to vote | Town: selectboard acted pursuant to statutory authority | Court: constitutional claim depends on lack of statutory authority; because court found statutory authority, constitutional claim fails and is rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Petition of Malisos, 166 N.H. 726 (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Hogan v. Pat’s Peak Skiing, LLC, 168 N.H. 71 (statutory words construed in context)
- Holt v. Keer, 167 N.H. 232 (interpret statutes in light of statutory scheme and purpose)
- Favazza v. Braley, 160 N.H. 349 (avoid interpreting statutes to reach absurd or illogical results)
- Appeal of Hinsdale Fed. of Teachers, 133 N.H. 272 (doctrine: capable of repetition yet evading review)
- Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321 (issues not meriting further discussion may be omitted)
- In re Estate of King, 149 N.H. 226 (issues not briefed on appeal are waived)