If Selectman Joanne Randall has her way, Epsom will revert to the old style of Town Meeting voting and rescind the official ballot form of voting commonly called SB2.

Randall, saying she has begun this as a private citizen, not as a selectman, is circulating a petition to get a warrant article on the 2009 ballot to go back to Town Meeting voting.

“SB2 has caused us to pass over town employees for normal, cost-of-living raises for four years straight,” Randall wrote in a letter to the editor. “We have had to cut services, including emergency services, since we have lost two full-time police officers due to this, and are facing the probability of even more town employees leaving if the budget does not pass again this year.”

RSA 40:13 is the law defining official ballot voting. Randall’s petition asks: Shall we rescind the provisions of RSA 40:13 (known as SB2), as adopted by the Town of Epsom on March 11, 1997, so that the official ballot will no longer be used for voting on all questions, but only for the election of officers and certain other questions for which the official ballot is required by state law?

Those wishing to sign the petition can contact Randall at joanne.randall@epsomnh.org or 344-8843, or find her at the selectmen’s meetings on Monday nights at the town offices at 6:15 p.m.

What’s the difference? The difference between SB2 and traditional Town Meeting voting is minor, but the effect can be enormous.

In traditional Town Meeting voting, warrant articles are discussed, amended and voted on by those in attendance at the meeting. Those unable to attend the meeting do not get to vote.

At a typical Town Meeting, a couple hundred people at most participate, making decisions affecting the entire town.

Under official ballot voting, or SB2, the Town Meeting still takes place, called the deliberative sesion, with warrant articles dicussed and amended. The difference is that the vote then takes place a few weeks later, open to every registered voter, even those who did not attend the deliberative session of Town Meeting. Voting through this method typically brings out far more people than attend the meeting.

Many argue the traditional Town Meeting results in a better- informed vote. Only those who have listened to the warrant article being read and discussed decide whether it will pass. Others argue that one does not need to attend the meeting to understand the issue and that everyone has a right to vote on articles that will directly affect their lives and wallets.

Often, attendance at deliberative sessions is far lower than at traditional Town Meeting since the voting does not take place at the meeting. This leads some to conclude that those voting are not as informed as they could be when they do vote under SB2.

In either form of government, special interest groups can easily form to thwart the intent of a warrant article, changing its meaning or zeroing out the money it asks for during the Town Meeting or the deliberative session.

Hard to go back
Once law, it is unusual for a town to rescind SB2. The New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies has kept track of the number of towns adopting and rescinding the law from 1996 to 2006. During that period, 59 municipalities and 69 school districts adopted the official ballot law, and only three municipalities have successfully rescinded it, though 18 towns and 13 school districts have seen unsuccessful attempts.

In its study, the center notes that larger towns are more likely to adopt SB2. As towns grow, it’s more difficult to get a majority of the population into one meeting room to discuss and vote on warrant articles.

The study says the 57 towns that had adopted SB2 by 2006 had an average of 7,500 people per municipality.