A bill proposing the creation of a task force to enhance safety during New Hampshire’s presidential primary season has bipartisan backing, but it’s also prompted questions — and even some criticism.
We asked readers of NHPR's Rundown newsletter to tell us what they think about the legislation: Is there a need for more security around presidential campaign events in New Hampshire?
Here’s some of what you told us.
Carol Stewart of Thornton questioned if a task force would be useful.
“I don't like the way violence seems to be the answer to disagreement, but unfortunately that appears to be almost the norm these days,” Stewart wrote. “What a task force could accomplish is questionable. I do believe that our law enforcement activities and cooperation with others are sufficiently strong and coherent to protect presidential candidates.”
Chip Underhill of Alton said that the usual police presence is the only required security.
“The appearance of any other law enforcement, especially in uniform, will only raise tension at the polls — especially ICE which has ZERO responsibility during elections,” he wrote.
In fact, several of you told us that you are more worried about voters’ safety and privacy at in the voting booth, rather than on the campaign trail.
“I think ‘more security’ really means more watchfulness of voters [and] voter suppression,” said Stephen Fry of Merrimack. “I would ask: How many politicians have been attacked in the last 10 years?”
“I am more concerned about safety at the polling places on election day,” wrote Elaine Wilk of Manchester. “Will there be ICE and/or CPB there to haul away people they think ‘might; be noncitizens or illegal (both of which I don't believe) so the Republicans can complain about ‘fraud’ in our (very safe) election process?”
Under the security task force bill, top state safety officials would work with local police, state higher education leaders, and members of both major political parties to craft “content-neutral, statewide guidance for presidential campaign event security planning and protest management that protects free speech and public safety.”
State Police Capt. Matthew Amatucci told lawmakers earlier this week that such a task force would duplicate efforts. He added that state and local police already work together to ensure safety at presidential campaign events.
Dave Govatski of Jefferson told us he agreed with that.
“I don’t see a need for politicians from either party to get involved in physical security matters when we already have a professional and capable law enforcement presence at the local, county, and state levels,” Govatski responded. “Let the professionals do their job. I also don’t want masked ICE paramilitary forces at our polling sites. Some of our politicians would likely see an opportunity to use these rogue elements to intimidate voters.”
Casper Bemis of Marlborough said the idea was a non-starter for him: “No additional, separate, law enforcement organizations are needed,” he said. “The more groups, the more potential confusion. The key to security is having the existing organizations work together.”
Tina Peabody of Franconia had a straightforward response to the suggestion that presidential hopefuls need extra protections when they’re in New Hampshire.
“If candidates feel they need more security, let them hire and pay for it,” Peabody told us. “Citizens should not pay for more security than is already available.”
