Reminder: SB 3 is Crap – Amend it or Scrap It

by Steve MacDonald

Sb3 is crapSenate Bill 3 claims to address the issue of domicile and residence for voting purposes in New Hampshire. It fails. The Senate passed it anyway, and despite its flaws, it is up for consideration in the House.

The single biggest problem is non-resident college students voting in local elections instead of voting absentee where the tuition bill goes. SB3 gives its blessing to this practice. SB 3 is crap.

The solution to SB3 and non-resident tuition-paying college students interfering in local elections is simple. Scrap SB3’s language about college kids and replace it with University of New Hampshire’s rules to qualify for in-state tuition.

Here it is.

To qualify for In-State tuition status a student [or his/her parents if a dependent] must physically reside in New Hampshire for no less than twelve continuous months prior to the term for which In-state status is desired, must reside in New Hampshire for some purpose other than attending the University, and meet all the other requirements of the tuition rules.

Students must live here for 12 consecutive months and must reside for some purpose other than attending the University.

If it’s good enough for UNH, it’s good enough for election law.

If the House doesn’t amend it, oppose it.



Leave a Comment

  • mer

    Or simply use UNH definition of Domicile from 2.2:

    “Domicile” means a person’s true, fixed and permanent home and place of
    habitation, to the exclusion of all others. It is the place where the
    person intends to remain and to which s/he expects to return when s/he
    leaves without intending to establish a new domicile elsewhere.

  • Ed Naile

    How about we simply use the specific federal case about out-of-state college student voters: Newbury v. Peterson 1972. Use the whole case language. Just like every other case ever brought to a federal court or state supreme court says:
    A student can vote where they go to school if they are “otherwise qualified,” which encompasses each states elections that pas constitutional muster.
    Here is how it is done.
    1. The student must declare NH his or her home by some legitimate action.
    2. That student must abandon the previous domicile, by some action.
    3. The actions can not be a sham with the intent to defraud legitimate voters of their rights.
    The language the previous Democrat/RINO NH AGs refused to understand in Newburger v. Peterson:
    “In this day of widespread planning for change of scene and occupation we cannot see that a requirement of permanent or indefinite intention to stay in one place is relevant to responsible citizenship. Or, to state it legally, the state has not shown that the indefinite intention requirement is necessary to serve a compelling interest.
    We are sensitive to the compelling need “to preserve the basic conception of a political community”. Dunn v. Blumstein, supra, 92 S.Ct. at 1004. But the challenged New Hampshire law forces persons who are in every meaningful sense members of New Hampshire political communities to vote in communities elsewhere which they have long departed and with whose affairs they are no longer concerned, if indeed the former community still recognizes the right.”

    The Newburger case was about overly restrictive durational residency requirements NH had in some towns (arbitrarily) in 1972. But the federal court recognized that students had to have abandoned the previous domicile.
    Some states actually drop you from their rolls if they find out you voted in another state. You actually lose citizenship in that state.
    Senate Bill #3 can not over-ride federal laws or the laws of other states by creating a new, unneeded definition of voter fraud.
    You can lot legislate your way out of a concerted effort by our NH AG to NOT prosecute.
    When that changes – or the Feds show up here, everything will be cleaned up.
    Eleven other states are finding that out this week through a suit by Judicial Watch.

    • Radical Moderate

      “When that changes – or the Feds show up here, everything will be cleaned up.”
      Answer: When “the Feds show up here”, is the only answer Ed. These morons in the state house are too afraid to take a stand on this issue. The vast majority are too old to have any desire to take a stand on anything anymore except to make sure they’re not cheated out of their senior discount at McDonald’s. (I am a senior citizen as well).
      My sincere wish is that the US AG makes an example out of New Hampshire and sends some of these state and local officials to prison. I don’t want to see my beloved home New Hampshire go through this type of national humiliation but unfortunately it is the harsh medicine we need to rid our state of these political slugs.
      Give Trump a year and he will be in the position to unleash AG Sessions on all the rogue states and political turncoats.
      Mark my words…it will happen.

      • Ed Naile

        Rad Man:
        A short history lesson on NH voter fraud.
        1. The US gave 18 year olds the right to vote in 1971, the 26th Amendment.
        2. States started amending election laws to accommodate the new dynamics.
        3. NH election officials in Hanover told a student he could not vote because he was going to graduate and leave. It was a set-up case to challenge NH after a similar Federal case called “Dunn” in Tennessee limited extreme “durational residency” laws.
        4. The Hanover student brought the Newburger v. Peterson case here in NH with the exact same results. An “intent to leave” can not be the only reason a person can not vote – IF THE VOTER IS OTHERWISE QUALIFIED.
        5. The NH AG did not argue that thousands of out-of-state voters would alter the “sense of community” of real citizens in college towns. The Court was puzzled by that and mentioned ways to do just that which were acceptable in other states.
        6. This began the reverse nonsense the NH AG’s and SoS use today of “intent to become” a citizen after voting.
        7. In 1976 the NH legislature amended our state constitution to say: “Inhabitants shall vote in the town or ward in which they are DOMICILED.” This was done to erase any confusion about who can vote in NH.
        7. The “intent to become” and “mobile domicile” scams work so well for Democrats who survive in out-of-state votes that the scam has not been stopped. This fraud has now been extended to campaign workers.
        So legislators in NH can pass all the new election laws they want. The only ones that will be enforced are the ones that, for instance, make election documents non-public or keep our statewide voter database out of public hands.
        And because of this it will take officials who monitor Federal elections – and will eventually cost us the Primary.

  • Michael Biundo

    If we ever get to a point where we can just get everything we want passed in Concord, let me know. Until then, I will take incremental wins.

  • kervick

    Easy peasy.

Previous post:

Next post: