Charlie W: I think that you did a yeoman's job on this. I remember the posts we had on this issue, and your calling it a "prima facie" case literally was like a Curt Schilling Fastball down the middle for Strike Three. Mere perfection.

As a Democrat, and even as former Town Democratic Chairman from Maine, this whole matter stunk to the high heavens. I can understand the idea of a volunteer legislature, but to do it in this fashion, to cover up state law, and also place two individuals convicted of fraud in a polling area wasn't something we did up in Maine (they'd run you out on a rail...regardless of Party Affiliation...), but I never thought that in New Hampshire this was possible.

However, you called it perfectly, and regardless of political differences yourself and myself, the common factor is...that we both understand the importance of the law, and the integrity of the electoral system that was railroaded by two individuals that were faking it to make it.

Ice up a cold one Charlie.....this time you earned it!

Charlie:

Nothing is "settled law" until it's litigated to the highest court. In this case, the situation wasn't litigated at all, it simply turned on an opinion by state officials.

Atlant: I am a Democrat also who did his part during the last election. What part of this did you not understand? The letter is from the TOP LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER of this State, and you are waiting for a judge to prove him otherwise?
Or is it your idea that we should elect mentally ill people convicted of fraudulent crime
Or could it be your lack of education hasn't hurt you none. You are not helping
Democrats with your bias.

Map data © OpenStreetMap contributors, CC-BY-SA

In This article

It's Final: Laughton Resigns State Rep Seat

By Carol Robidoux

Nashua Rep Did Jail Time in Laconia

By Carol Robidoux

Transgendered Rep. Candidate Files to Run in Special Election

See More on Patch
Transgendered Pol Says She's In It To Win It (Again)
Board of Aldermen Vote to Hold Special Election
It's Final: Laughton Resigns State Rep Seat
Answers Needed in Laughton Case Before Special Election
Republicans Call for Laughton to Resign

s?

@Atlant; it has been my position all along that they should both be charged. It is partisanship that they have not. That would put this squarely in the court to which it can then be taken all the way to SCOTUS, that is assuming there is basis for an appeals court to even hear it.
You are no better than the far right wing nuts you see eveyone as; you are completely willing to let something this egriously illegal fly, all in the name of your political partisanship advancement. That is the very problem you rail against the right for doing.....nice to actually see it so well illustrated for the spade that it is.

Cheers Atlant

@Dan, thank you.......but I am saddened that it took this long and that during this and even now still it is viewed as a partisan matter. This should have been an easy issue for the wing nuts to find common ground in agreeing; but alas there are those more interested in advancing differences regardless of the means. We the people are responsible for our governent.

As a Democrat, I think that you are correct to a point. The big problem is, and I have stated this clearly over the past year, that "when you pay $200/term in office, under the idea of a volunteer legislature, you get what you pay for." While the NH Democratic Party shows that it doesn't do some background checks of it's candidates, it isn't just endemic to the Democrats. Just as D.J. Bettencourt, and the other Republicans who have broken the law/ethics in this state over the last 4 years.

Legal action I think should be taken to recover the funding for this election, and it would be only appropriate. Whether Ray Buckley, who is one of the first gay State Party Chairperson in the U.S. did this for such reasons, that needs to be answered to all Democrats in this state. However, to blame Maggie Hassan or Terie Norelli on this issue is stupid. I didn't hear anyone blaming Bill O'Brien or Pete Bragdon, for D.J. Bettencourt, or even the NHGOP chair at that time either.

However, it would set a good precedent if the NHDP, would do this much. and set a good example for ALL political parties in New Hampshire.

Dan, a party cannot tell anyone not to run anymore than they can tell someone to run.

The person responsible for the costs incurred is the person who has been finally told they ran while not having finished their sentence.

Jan: A political party can have a campaign committee that will basically interview the candidate, after the primaries. While yes, they cannot tell the candidate that they cannot run for public office, they can mitigate these problems, by looking into their past history, and if in a case like this one, the campaign committee can block funding, or for that matter advise the candidate in writting that there would be no endorsement from the political party, either literally or inherently. Having said that, I did voice my opinion with NHDP on the Laughton Issue, and the level of ambivalence to this was like "um ok" and that was it.

That is why there needs to be some reflecton by NHDP State Committee in their policies in this case, screen their candidates in cases like these. Just because this is a "volunteer legislature" doesn't mean you give a wink and nod in this case. ESPECIALLY when it was PAINFULLY (capitlized for emphasis), that State Law made it clear, that she was ineligible.

Dan:

You seem to be confused about how the political process works in this state.

If you sign up to run on the "Democratic" party line, there's *NO* vetting process by the party and no legal means for the party to conduct any vetting. If too many candidates sign up on the Democratic line for the number of slots available in the General Election, then the state will run a Primary election to select the correct number of Democratic candidates. If the exactly correct number (or fewer) sign up for the Democratic line, then those candidates advance directly to the General Election ballot. This is true *EVEN IF THE CANDIDATE* is obviously from another party; in the past, we've had candidates appear "on both sides" of the General Election ballot.

In Ward 4 in 2012 there wasn't any Democratic Primary election and all candidates who signed-up for the Democratic party line advanced directly to the General Election: Mary Gorman, David Cote, and Stacie Laughton. (Not "Barry", by the way; your use of that name just shows your transgender prejudices.)

So now we're in the General Election. AFAIK, the State Democratic Party didn't spend any money electing Stacie nor did it offer any specific endorsement. In fact, Stacie campaigned on a shoe-string, using hand-made signs.

Should she have run? Hindsight obviously says "No". But no one raised these concerns before the election and while the Democratic Party can offer advice, it can't block candidates from running.

@Atlant, so all that support for the Laughton's until this ruling was just a mistake huh Atlant? Your completely comfortable with this kind of candiate as long as the are in the big D tent and right up until they are legally found not to be able to hold office; then you have no use for the right?

Charlie:

I never offered (nor withheld) any support specifically for Stacie's candidacy at any time.

I did support the Democratic ticket as-a-whole and I will again support the Democratic Candidate in the Ward 4 special election.

But of course Atlant.....as long as there is a D by their name you could care less about the candidate...that is exactly what I am saying....nice job. Some might call that a "lemming".

Atlant: First off, Having volunteered my time during the election, I am WELL AWARE of the fact that Stacie/Barry was running what amounted to a shoestring shadow campaign. I never saw ANY literature from her campaign either. However, that DOES NOT make the NHDP immune from this situation.

If we the people are to blindly elect people, or for that matter create a volunteer legislature of people whose education levels were extremely poor, and their backgrounds being questionable in regards to convictions for fraud, that isn't something that is commendable, or something that we should hang our hat on. If the GOP had done this, it would have been in the news, maybe even more so. The NHDP should have had some background on their candidates, REGARDLESS of whose paying the bills.

I am reminded of a story in Maine where a State Senate Candidate ran because he knew the people by just "sitting on their porch and smoking cigarettes." The Maine Democratic Party looked into this, and kinda advised him, that he needed more of a background before any money was going to be spent on him.

In fact, I am reminded of how a House Speaker, would call all the candidates, and inquire about the candidates bio, background, and how they were conducting their campaigns. It makes good political sense. The NHDP should think about this. If it had, we wouldn't be talking about this issue, and Stacie's campaign would have been stopped without the SAG forcing the issue.

Dan,

There was nothing the party could do, nothing to keep her from running. If you were in her ward, why didn't YOU do the research and let people know about her crimes?

Why are you trying to shift the blame from the voters and the candidate?

There was really no way of doing their homework, she changed her name.

Jack, Atlant was suggesting that only Jerks would oppose equal marriage.
That you thought this applied to you says more about you than him.

Healy must be Atlants lost twin brother.

Did someone named "Healy" post something?

Mike: In Maine, the Democratic Party had a Campaign Committee, that would look at all the candidates running for office. I once got asked to be on it, but work issues took me away from that idea. What it did was to look at all those candidates running (after the primaries) to see what these candidates running their campaigns, and to know something about them, so that they knew of potential problems.

In New Hampshire, where you have a volunteer legislature, and from what it looks like, even a panhandler could get elected to state office, get the $200 per term doing it. Problem is, that it solved nothing in this case, and a candidate with little education, no job to speak of and record of fraudulent activity got elected. Somehow I don't think the founding fathers of this state created such a legislature for that purpose. This state has grown, and progressed LONG BEFORE the days of Horace Greeley and Daniel Webster. Maybe it would be high time to get the volunteer legislature out of the stone age, and into modern day practices....for a change. Things might be done more efficiently that way. Businesses don't just hire panhandlers off the streets, they go for educated people. Yet New Hampshire elected a State Rep with little education, for $200/a term. See a problem with that picture....I do..

In my earlier comment, I meant LONG AFTER Horace Greeley and Daniel Webster.

Sorry!

Carol: I don't think this issue is totally over with the Laughton's departure from Selectman's position. I haven't heard anyone answer the question as to whether or not either Stacy or Lisa were working in the polling place on the November 6th election? It would be nice to know that, because if they were, it could be an election law violation. I don't believe that ANY state in this country allows people who are on the ballot to be Poll Workers of any sort and kind in their polling place...

Thank you Carol for looking this up.

My comment on their resignation came prior to your reply. However, you are one ACE reporter....that's for sure!

"This about me not giving all info that the voters should have had" & " It is about miss understandings in the law." No, it is about you and your ex-wife breaking the law; multiple times. It is about you and your ex-wife not having the ethics to resign until forced to do so under the threat of legal action. Seeing how your addressing it even now speaks volumes about your character and disregard for the law. The fact that there are those who supported you and your wife's efforts even after the legality of the situation came to light speaks volumes about politics and the blinding partisan nature present in our government today.

Steve, look, no one is questioning that neither of the Laughton's can legally be in office anymore. Nor is anyone really questioning that they exercise sound judgement or are even ethical; they exhibit and have neither. They will not be able to hold office for some time and are clearly confused and porrly informed. The entire thing is a mess I am not sure that pointing out further issues to them will be understood by them or if they even care; nonethe less now they do know and have the ability to self educate and address the issues. I say give them thier chance to do just that and when they resurface, probably under another name no less, that would be the best time to bring concerns forward. As of now, they are not and will not be representing anyone and are private citizens and should be afforded the privacy they are due.

Believe me, I completely understand your frusturation; neither of the Laughton's are exemplar citizens for sure. It would not surprise me if the were indeed legally fraudulent or amiss in other aspects of thier dealings with society at large; so by all means have at bringing scrutiny to where you see injustice. All I am saying is that it is clear they no longer seek or hold public office and they will not be for some time; so I struggle to see the utility of delving into thier deeply troubled mind set regarding this issue. Honestly they need help, direction and supervision not further ridicule for thier deeds.

"We did not face legal action with the city" no, that is partisan politics that you did not. But you sure as hell should be facing charges.

Ok, now prove it by paying off your restitution and finishing your sentence.