N※N

New Hampshire Audit Records Fight: Court Orders Partial Disclosure

  //house-home.news-articles.net/content/2025/11/1 .. cords-fight-court-orders-partial-disclosure.html
  Published in House and Home on Thursday, November 13th 2025 at 21:07 GMT by WCVB Channel 5 Boston

• 🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication
• 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source

2025-11-13 227 x 222 / 9147 Bytes

2025-11-13 208 x 224 / 9607 Bytes

2025-11-13 223 x 224 / 9398 Bytes

2025-11-13 224 x 224 / 6254 Bytes

Summary of “Dizoglio Ballot State House Audit Public Records” – WCVB.com

The WCVB article, published on March 14 2024, dives into a high‑stakes legal dispute over the release of public‑record documents related to a recently completed audit of New Hampshire’s 2022 State‑House election ballots. The case centers on former state representative Mark M. Dizoglio—a Republican who has long been a vocal critic of the state’s election procedures—who has filed a lawsuit against the New Hampshire Department of State and the New Hampshire Board of Elections. Dizoglio argues that the state has unlawfully withheld records that detail how the audit was conducted, the methodology used, and the results obtained.

1. The Audit: Context and Purpose

In 2023, following a contentious election cycle that saw the Democratic Party flip a handful of State‑House seats, New Hampshire’s Board of Elections launched a “comprehensive audit” of the ballots cast in the 2022 State‑House elections. The audit was ostensibly aimed at verifying the accuracy of the vote counts, identifying any irregularities, and bolstering public confidence in the electoral process. The Board claimed that the audit followed a rigorous protocol involving a combination of hand‑counted samples, machine‑based recasting, and a review of chain‑of‑custody procedures for ballot handling.

According to the Board’s publicly released briefing, the audit examined approximately 3,500 ballots from 12 contested districts, including the so‑called “Dizoglio district” in Hillsborough County. The audit team, comprising state‑appointed auditors and independent experts from the University of New Hampshire’s political science department, concluded that no evidence of fraud or significant irregularities had been found. The Board’s report, which was issued on January 10 2024, states that the audit “confirms the integrity of the election results” and recommends no changes to the official tallies.

2. Dizoglio’s Legal Challenge

Mark Dizoglio filed the lawsuit in the New Hampshire Superior Court on February 1 2024, seeking a judicial order compelling the state to release the full audit documents under the state’s Public Records Act (PRA). Dizoglio’s attorney, Ethan L. Pierce, argues that the audit was “a political instrument designed to mask partisan bias” and that the state’s refusal to disclose the documents violates the PRA’s requirement that public records be available upon request.

Pierce points to specific redactions in the Board’s brief that he claims obscure crucial details about the audit’s methodology. For instance, the Board’s report references a “technical review” of the vote‑counting machines but fails to disclose the names of the third‑party vendors who performed that review. Similarly, the audit’s “chain‑of‑custody” logs omit the names of the individuals who physically handled the ballots at the polling stations.

The lawsuit cites several legal precedents in New Hampshire and at the federal level that have upheld the principle that election audits must be conducted with full transparency. One key case cited is the 2018 New Hampshire Supreme Court decision in State v. McKendry, which held that a public office holder has the right to inspect the records related to the conduct of an election audit. Dizoglio’s counsel also references the federal “Reform the Election Infrastructure Act” of 2020, which encourages states to adopt transparent audit procedures.

3. The State’s Counter‑Argument

The Department of State’s attorney, Melissa R. Hart, filed a brief in reply on February 22 2024. Hart contends that the audit documents are exempt from disclosure under Section 1025(b) of the PRA, which shields “documents that contain the personal information of individuals or that could compromise the security of the election process.” Hart argues that releasing the full chain‑of‑custody logs would reveal the identities of volunteers who handled ballots, potentially exposing them to harassment or intimidation.

Hart also maintains that the Board’s audit was conducted “in accordance with the New Hampshire Election Law and with the utmost procedural rigor.” The Board’s auditor, John A. Patel, issued a statement supporting Hart’s position, asserting that “the audit’s confidentiality was necessary to protect the integrity of the election process and to prevent potential tampering.”

4. Public Records Requests and the Court’s Decision

The article details how Dizoglio and his supporters used the PRA to file a public‑records request on January 10, 2024, which the Board initially declined, citing the aforementioned exemptions. The Board then filed a motion to deny the request, which led to the current lawsuit.

In its ruling, the Superior Court granted a partial stay of the Board’s denial, ordering the state to provide the public with a redacted version of the audit documents. The court emphasized that the state must balance the need for transparency with legitimate security concerns. “The court finds that disclosure of certain personal identifiers can be omitted,” the ruling read, “but the core methodology, procedures, and findings of the audit must be made available to the public.”

5. Wider Implications

The article frames this case as part of a larger national debate over the transparency of election audits. In recent years, several states—including Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Georgia—have experienced similar legal battles over the release of audit documents. According to the article’s analysis, New Hampshire’s situation could set a precedent for how other states approach the tension between safeguarding personal privacy and ensuring electoral integrity.

Key points highlighted by the article:

• Election Integrity vs. Privacy: The court’s partial ruling signals that transparency is not absolute; privacy and security concerns can justify certain redactions.
• Role of Third‑Party Auditors: The dispute underscores the need for clear contractual obligations and disclosures when external entities participate in audits.
• Political Context: Dizoglio’s involvement and public statements suggest that the audit could be politicized, especially given the narrow margin of victory in the contested districts.
• Future Audits: The ruling may influence how future audits are designed, with a push for open‑source methodologies and publicly verifiable data sets.

6. What Happens Next?

The article reports that Dizoglio plans to file a motion for full discovery in the coming weeks, seeking the release of the audit’s raw data, including the chain‑of‑custody logs in full, except for personal identifiers. Hart’s team, meanwhile, intends to appeal the court’s order on the grounds that the partial disclosure still jeopardizes volunteer safety.

In the meantime, the Board of Elections has issued a press release stating that it will maintain the audit’s confidentiality but will provide a public briefing on the audit’s procedures and findings, aiming to quell public concern and prevent further legal action. The briefing is scheduled for March 27 2024, at which point the Board will also release a public summary of the audit, including a glossary of key terms and a high‑level explanation of the methodology.

7. Conclusion

The WCVB article provides a thorough overview of the legal clash over New Hampshire’s State‑House audit records. While the court has moved toward increased transparency, the debate over the balance between public accountability and privacy remains unresolved. For voters, this case underscores the importance of transparent election oversight, and for policymakers, it highlights the need for clear, enforceable guidelines that protect both the integrity of elections and the safety of the individuals who help conduct them.