Four voters sue Keene School District



Before the Deliberative Session, Conan Salada collected signatures on 7 warrant articles to be placed on the official ballot before voters in the upcoming Keene School District election.

During the Deliberative Session, all 7 warrant articles were amended in a manner that eliminated the subject. These amendments were challenged as out of order, however the moderator over-ruled those motions, and the majority of voters in attendance agreed with the moderator. The Keene Sentinel described these changes as “Machiavellian legal maneuvering… to avoid letting voters decide the merits of the articles“.

After the Deliberative Session, Darryl W. Perry, was directed to the 2011 Rockingham Superior Court decision in the case of Bailey v. Town of Exeter. In Bailey, the Court ruled, “the Court finds and rules the only way the phrase ‘no warrant article shall be amended to eliminate the subject matter of the article’ can logically be read is to conclude that any amendment that made the subject matter of the article a nullity was forbidden,” adding that “[m]erely because the majority of the voters were more clever in the way the amendment was worded to create the nullity does not mean their action was not a violation of the statute.”

Perry, Salada and two other voters (David Crawford and Eric LaRoche) have filed suit against the School District due to the illegal actions at the Deliberative Session that have disenfranchised the voters of Keene, including petitioners.

The filing can be read here. A court date has been set for Friday, February 28 at 11am.

Now you can subscribe to Free Keene via email!

Don't miss a single post!


  1. This is a good lesson for Anarchists to study and learn from.

  2. Why for anarchists, in particular? Seems like a good lesson for anyone who votes to study, whether that individual be an anarchist or a statist.

  3. This is good but you may want to consider amending Paragraph 1 since the only “petitioners” mentioned are Conan and Daryl. All four should be mentioned in Paragraph 1 as “petitioners”

  4. Ian:
    If given a chance in court it might pay to stress that you are exorcising a right to petition prescribed by law (one the court is established to protect) that any citizen can use.
    For instance, a person who can not attend a meeting but only through the petition process has his right to petition nullified/stolen by word play for no reason other than spite.
    The people opposed to the lawful citizens petition rob others rather than exorcize their ownn right to vote against the offending petitions – or get the signatures on their own competing petition.
    This why we have a deliberative session and town meeting in the first place, to foster discussion and to recieve information – not to engage in treachery.
    If the Court wants to encourage legitimate debate and faith in our many historic town and school meetings it should order that the lawful duly signed and presented citizens petitions be placed on the March 11 ballot as presented to the voters and posted publicly under RSA 91-A before the deliberative session for all to read.

Care to comment?