New Hampshire’s Out-of-State-Tuition Paying Matriculating Morons

by Steve MacDonald

Not sure if voting illegallyOne of the imagined hardships of being a voting age progressive social justice warrior marooned on a New Hampshire college campus is that your rights are continually being suppressed.

Every election season out-of-state-tuition paying matriculators are told by New Hampshire Democrats that they can vote in New Hampshire, while Republicans in the Granite State think that–seeing as they are paying out of state tuition–they should be voting in the state from whence the out-of-state-tuition is paid.

Democrats typically win this battle because a) Republican leadership is perennially peppered with pansy-assed invertebrates, terrified by bad press and b) Democrats whine, and cry, and express outrage except for student rights until you suggest that students voting in NH be immediately given the substantial in-state tuition discount.

There’s no mobile domicile or presence or sense or intent when it comes to paying tuition to the State college/university system. You have to be serious about being from New Hampshire. Voting for congress, president, state officials growing government and spending billions of other peoples dollars, let them stuff the ballot boxes.

I like to call this (starting, I don’t know, how about now?) the fiscal rape of morons for stolen votes.

New Hampshire Democrats think out-of-state-tuition paying college kids are morons. Their progressive buddies in the white tower milk them for top-dollar, while party flunkies, local politicians, and activists convince them that they can’t possibly complete an absentee ballot and vote back where those tuition checks originate. You should vote here, here, they say. They even watered down the rules to make it less likely you’d get prosecuted (which is actually an inside joke amongst both parties).

What they don’t tell them is that every time that out-of-state-tuition paying college kid votes in New Hampshire a New Hampshire Democrat has stolen a vote from some Democrat in another state.

Vote thieves! Twice!

And all is fine, and well, and good, with this thievery, even with bills like SB 3 which claims to tighten the rules but only enough to make Democrats wail and cry at (insert manufactured injustice). Something they didn’t do when the biggest threat in recent memory to their scam arrived on the legislative scene last January.

No, not Donald Trump.

House Bill 622, put forward by a handful of faithful Democrats would allow all voting by absentee ballot. It was voted inexpedient to legislate in committee but think about it. Anyone anywhere in the state would be able to vote in any election using an absentee ballot.

Absentee ballots are a great way to commit voter fraud, which is why Democrats love them, but putting that aside for a minute and consider what this admission means? If Democrats do not believe that it is a hardship to allow every voting age person in the entire state to vote by absentee ballot, then it can’t possibly be a hardship for those moronic matriculating out-of-state-tuition paying college kids they dupe to vote where UNH says they live instead of where vote thieving New Hampshire Democrats say they live.

It’s a fact.

Now if we could just get the Republicans, the Governor, the AG, and the Feds to agree, we might finally have a clean election and discover who the actual residents of New Hampshire want for elected office in this state.

That hasn’t happened in very long time.

No, I’m not holding my breath.

Leave a Comment

  • Radical Moderate

    Steve, if you originated the term; “pansy-assed invertebrates” I salute you!
    That is, without a doubt the most dead on description of New Hampshire Republicans that I have heard of to date. Notice on the website vote.org they specifically say that one of the main reasons for absentee voting is for college students.
    https://www.vote.org/absentee-voting-rules/
    This is so clear cut and simple that it becomes obvious that the NHDP are deliberately trying to delay the judicious and equitable application of the voting laws.
    Let me put it to you this way…
    If you were a police officer and let’s say you caught a bank robber exiting a bank with gun in hand. He may have a thousand excuses why its not what it appears to be and why you shouldn’t arrest him. The end result is no matter what excuse the bank robber gives you, you know what must be done. You must place the bank robber under arrest because it is the most “reasonable” thing to do which is based on the “reasonable man” standard. The “Reasonable Man” standard is what the entire foundation of US law is based upon. https://definitions.uslegal.com/r/reasonable-man-theory/
    Likewise the NHDP keeps throwing out excuses, and even gets some Left wing NH judges to go along with their obfuscations which flies in the face of the interpretation of the voting laws utilizing the “reasonable man standard”.
    This falls directly on the back of the NH Attorney General as the chief law enforcement office in the state and his boss the Governor.
    Republicans are afraid to make a move on the issue of College student voters because they sense that if they don’t cater to them their days in office are numbered because, as we all know after having been told a bazillion times by the MSM that… the people are the future. I say BS!
    What the majority of Republicans fail to realize the problem is their days are numbered anyway because these college students have been brainwashed by Leftist Professors who are being paid by our taxpayer supported State Colleges. NH Conservatives are funding their own demise. You see the constant articles in our local newspapers proving to you just how anti-conservative our state colleges are, but you simply look away as if it will never affect you.
    Shock of all shocks NH Republicans,,but these students are never going to vote for you anyway.
    Listen and listen good…
    Stop listening to the NH Chamber of Commerce.
    Stop listening to those who are making money off of the increasing Leftward tilt of NH.
    The only way Republicans can survive is by adopting a slash and burn philosophy.
    Otherwise….
    Just give it up and surrender the country to the NeoVandals.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandals

  • mer

    I would love to see a class action suit against the universities:
    “I am allowed to vote in NH but I’m not allowed to pay instate tuition”.

    Discovery would be fun.

    • Ed Naile

      Stay tuned then mer.
      NH can’t play let’s pretend forever with Federal elections held in our state.

  • roger

    “Every election season out-of-state-tuition paying matriculators are told
    by New Hampshire Democrats that they can vote in New Hampshire,”

    Except they Legally Can. http://sos.nh.gov/CollegeStudent.aspx

    “A college student in New Hampshire may choose as his/her voting domicile,
    either the domicile he/she held before entering college or the domicile
    he/she has established while attending college.”

    “What they don’t tell them is that every time that out-of-state-tuition
    paying college kid votes in New Hampshire a New Hampshire Democrat has
    stolen a vote from some Democrat in another state.

    Oh sure, I am going to bet that if they voted for the GOP you wouldn’t be complainging so bad.

    News Flash…young college kids tend to vote Democrats. Should we shut down all the colleges? At least everyyone would on your maturty level.

    • Nick Martin

      Yeah, I don’t get this constant accusation of voter fraud when the law clearly states that it is legal.

      If you think it should not be legal, then propose an amendment to the NH state constitution to either change Article 11 or to add a different definition for “domicile.” Even SB3 permits college students to vote in NH.

      • Ed Naile

        The idea that Article 11 means something other than what is says is a silly way to lie.
        Don’t you have some reasonable nonsense you can come up with?
        Have you read the first sentence in Article 11?
        If you want to steal elections be a big boy and say it.
        I thought progressives were supposed to be intelligent.
        [Art.] 11. [Elections and Elective Franchises.] All elections are to be free, and every inhabitant of the state of 18 years of age and upwards shall have an equal right to vote in any election. Every person shall be considered an inhabitant for the purposes of voting in the town, ward, or unincorporated place where he has his domicile.
        How about conservative re-define some words:
        Public school means: Private school.
        The right to bear arms shall not be infringed means: Everyone shall be armed.
        Abortion means: delivering a healthy human being through procreation.
        This is what you sound like and it is tedious.

        • roger

          Of conservatives have their way public schools will be private. Especially with Betsy at the helm.

          You forgot the first half of the 2nd amendment….”A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,”

          I can’t even with you Ed, how do you put pants on?

          • sb

            You are ignoring the original definitions of regulated and militia from when that amendment was written.

          • granitegrok

            So why not private? Does it matter what the business model, free market or government monopoly? It shouldn’t. Monies dedicated to education should follow the child and not a building’s zip code.

            As to the Second Amendment, why did you only quote the preambles and not the subject of the sentence? What was your purpose in doing that?

          • granitegrok

            When the Second was written, “well regulated” did not mean, as it does today, that government regulations were in force. Instead, it was well known to mean “in good working order”.

            Tench Coxe: “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves?” (The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788). That is to say, citizens who had their own arms.

        • Nick Martin

          Ed, so nice of you to join us. I’m still waiting for the apology, by the way.

          It’s funny, because, you never did explain your own definition of domicile — which seems to be different from the folks whom you think should be enforcing this law. And I bet, if you stopped 10 conservatives on the street, their definition would sound something like mine. So, what then, does it mean to be “considered an inhabitant for the purposes of voting in the town, ward, or unincorporated place where he has his domicile?”

          If living there isn’t enough, where’s the line? Must they have lived here for a certain length of time? Must they have no intention of leaving? How shall we determine what they’re thinking? What if they change their mind?

          • Ed Naile

            My definition is the same one the NH State Supreme Court refuses to use or even address.
            That would make it easy.
            In the appeal of Guare the Court never touched the definition of the word domicile like they have always addressed the meaning of words in the past – Black’s Law, Edition 4.
            Look it up.

          • sb

            From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 [gcide]:

            Domicile Dom”i*cile, n. [L. domicilium; domus house + (prob.)
            root of celare to conceal: cf. F. domicile. See {Dome}, and
            {Conceal}.]
            1. An abode or mansion; a place of permanent residence,
            either of an individual or a family.
            [1913 Webster]

            2. (Law) A residence at a particular place accompanied with
            an intention to remain there for an unlimited time; a
            residence accepted as a final abode. –Wharton.
            [1913 Webster]

            From WordNet (r) 3.0 (2006) [wn]:

            domicile
            n 1: (law) the residence where you have your permanent home or
            principal establishment and to where, whenever you are
            absent, you intend to return; every person is compelled to
            have one and only one domicile at a time; “what’s his legal
            residence?” [syn: {domicile}, {legal residence}]
            2: housing that someone is living in; “he built a modest
            dwelling near the pond”; “they raise money to provide homes
            for the homeless” [syn: {dwelling}, {home}, {domicile},
            {abode}, {habitation}, {dwelling house}]
            v 1: make one’s home in a particular place or community; “may
            parents reside in Florida” [syn: {reside}, {shack},
            {domicile}, {domiciliate}]

          • Bruce Currie

            With respect to presidential elections, at least, Congress passed an amendment to the Voting Rights Act in 1970, stating that no citizen could be denied the right to vote because of any “durational residency requirement”. I think that puts an end to any equating of “permanent” with “domicile” in a mobile society.

          • Ed Naile

            Yet most states have durational residency.
            Do you have a clue?
            The Act you refer to was US Code 42 – which is now US Code 52 – the one I use.
            See why you should just stay away from trying to read statutes.
            The extreme durational residency laws in Tennessee for instance would deny legitimate voters legally domiciled in that state for years to be denied the right to vote.
            Its the “Dunn” case.
            In NH the most on point case is Newburger where a student was denied the right to register because he intended to leave upon graduation – which made him subject to a different standard than say a businessman transferred here for work with the intention of leaving – so a Federal Court suggested to NH that was not lawful.
            So you and Mr. Anonymouse argue a FEDERAL court WOULD now in 2017, allow non-residents to vote.
            Yeah, that makes sense.

        • roger

          ED THE STATE HAS DEFINED Domicile! Not progressives.

      • GREYGHOSTCSA

        Nick, I have been debating this subject since the 2008 elections. The key element is not “domicile”, “residence” or wherever the individual (student) claims to be living in order to be allowed to vote in New Hampshire elections. The key element is (for purposes of this discussion, I am referring to those attending one of the three state colleges), are they paying non-resident tuition. I am also assuming, Nick, that you understand the concept and meaning of non-resident tuition, that being that in the eyes of the institution, said individual is not a legal resident of the State of New Hampshire and thus not entitled to have the tuition costs subsidized by the taxpayers, and therefore also not entitled to vote in our elections. The final element in this is that if these individuals are smart enough to be admitted to one of these three colleges, they are smart enough to understand the concept of an absentee ballot and how to write to the town clerk in their home town and obtain one, something our military personnel stationed overseas have to do.

        • Ed Naile

          GG:
          Here is another flaw in the non-residents can vote in NH scam.
          At the Election Integrity hearing this week one member said “It is a question of where you lay your head” as a definition of domicile.
          Well NH courts disagree.
          See the “Madison” case for reference.
          Madison election officials tried to deny a public school teacher in that town from voting because he stayed in Ma. all week at a hotel while teaching there.
          He had a NH driver’s license, a Madison home, his kids went to Madison schools.
          The NH Court sided with the teacher – so would have any Federal Court.
          Domicile is a matter of facts and intent. It is not rocket science.
          The refusal of NH election officials to acknowledge that is a scam meant to further Democrat Party goals and candidates – exactly like the Claremont “cherish” scam.
          The courts got away with it once and came back for more.
          It really is that simple.

        • Nick Martin

          I appreciate your perspective and I do see the contradiction in the in- vs. out-of-state tuition. In my mind, it doesn’t make sense and should be fixed. However, the problem is, schools (public or private) don’t hold legal authority to determine where someone should vote. They do have authority to define residency however suits them, and have no duty to reassess residency if a student claims to have “moved” to the state. I’m not saying we should open the polls to every Mass resident who shows up, I’m simply saying the law does not prohibit students from voting as it stands today — not just in my opinion, but the opinion of judges, law enforcement officials and many others. So, if that’s a problem, change the law.

          • Radical Moderate

            I give you credit for recognizing the conflict in the “in state” vs “out of state” tuition point but It seems you are still missing the fact that a crime is being committed by an “out of state” college student voting in New Hampshire elections.
            http://www.unh.edu/registrar/general-information/residency.html

            Now let me ask you Nick, after reading the above link do you agree that the issue of “residency” is made explicitly clear by UNH? They also make it explicitly clear on the official state tuition form as well; http://www.unh.edu/registrar/forms/instateresidencyform.pdf

            So after an “out of state” student attending UNH signs that form which requires to be sworn to in front of an official Notary of Public and then decides to cast a vote in NH is either committing vote fraud which is a crime or has falsified an official state document which is a crime.
            Either way they are committing a crime.

          • Ed Naile

            UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE NOTARIZED RESIDENCY STATEMENT FOR NEW HAMPSHIRE RESIDENTS
            Please complete both sections as needed and note required student or parent signatures when appropriate: ? Lawful Resident of the United States Affidavit ? New Hampshire Residency Statement.

            Lawful Resident of the United States Affidavit

            New Hampshire State law requires all students paying in-state tuition rates to execute an affidavit attesting they are a lawful resident of the United States.
            New Hampshire Residency Statement You must complete and have notarized either section A or B below regarding residency. If neither is appropriate, attach notarized statement detailing all the facts upon which your claim for New Hampshire domicile is based. If you are claiming New Hampshire domicile but are not currently living in the state, be certain to explain the circumstances that require you to live elsewhere. Payment of property and/or residency taxes does not constitute the basis for a claim of legal domicile. Dependent students whose parents are divorced or legally separated where one, and only one, of the parents is domiciled in New Hampshire are advised to have that parent inform us in a notarized letter of his/her legal custody of the student or that he/she provides more than one-half of the student’s total financial support. New Hampshire residents who are military personnel on assignment outside the state and who are applying for admission or have dependents doing so, should submit a statement establishing that they entered the armed forces as residents of the state of New Hampshire. This statement should be certified by a commanding officer .The “Rules Governing Tuition for the University System of New Hampshire” are available on the Office of Admissions website, admissions.unh.edu. Misrepresentation of facts to establish claim to New Hampshire domicile will be viewed as justification for revoking an acceptance or returning an application without consideration. Per NH House Bill 624, approved June 2014, the 12 month waiting period is waived for US military veterans.
            (I save this stuff for times like these!)

        • roger

          “The key element is (for purposes of this discussion, I am referring to
          those attending one of the three state colleges), are they paying
          non-resident tuition.”

          I’m glad you just invent your own issues for this argument, maybe stick the ones the court narrowed it down do?

    • Bryan W

      It is fraud in this sense:

      1) Consider the number of college students who register to vote here but put their “home” address (out of state) as their mailing address. This tells me they are lying when they say they have abandoned their former address.

      2) State Law says that if you move here, you have 60 days to change your drivers’ license and car registrations to NH.

      When the law was that the affidavit you sign to register to vote made this clear (2004 I think), hordes of college students came to the polls to vote, only to leave because they didn’t want change their drivers licenses. This tells me again they are lying when they say they have abandoned their former address.

      3) Going the other way, if they register to vote, and consequently change their drivers license & car registration to NH, then they are now in-state students, and should be able to pay in-state tuition.

      They are defrauding the system. All I ask is that they, and we, be consistent.

      • roger

        Yeah they aren’t voting in NH and then flying home that day to vote again. Your worries are unfounded. It’s far from fraud.

        • Bryan W

          Voting again? That’s the least of my worries.

          They are skewing the results and stealing elections. That should worry anyone who is honest about who should be able to vote.

          • roger

            Wow so if the GOP won these elections would you say the same thing?

            I mean they legally have the right to vote here, the fact that you disagree with how they vote is not this problem.

          • Ed Naile

            “I mean they legally have the right to vote here,”
            Wow, that is like totally awesome evidence.

          • Bryan W

            I don’t care as much about who wins as that the election is clean and fair. Importing voters who do not belong and have no connection to our communities does not fit that definition.

        • Ed Naile

          Funny, we caught a guy flying here to steal a vote.
          And we did it without access to almost any election documents – since Democrats have made most of them non-public through various changes to NH Statutes . RSA 654:45
          I wonder why?

    • Ed Naile

      So you use the front page of the Secretary of State’s web site as quotable state statute?
      How about the laws in the states the vote thieves are from? Do they count as much as their out-of-state driver’s license does when stealing a NH vote?
      Do you feel any guilt for luring immature college students into thinking they are free to vote here?
      I bet not.
      Try this on for size:
      If for instance the NH AG prosecutes a hundred of your college lemmings, can I send them your contacts so you can go testify on their behalf?
      No, you are an anonymouse.
      No guts, just nonsensicle opinion.

      • roger

        Hahaha it’s literally THE source? You are insane dude get over it. Hillary won NH , so did Hassan. No one is stealing your vote or anyone else’s.
        You have a source for those prosecutions? I’m calling Fake News in that again!
        Grow up.

        • Bryan W

          I witnessed voter fraud right in front of me in the last General election. The town police arrested the guy a short time later on an unrelated matter, which is how we found out.

          Once we had the evidence that the man had committed voter fraud (“sworn falsification” or perjury) we contacted the AG’s office. We informed them of the facts and circumstances, the name of the cop who arrested him, the cops phone number – everything. The guy spent the night in jail (high flight risk).

          This is as clear-cut as it gets. The facts and circumstances can be explained in less than 10 minutes. The physical evidence is irrefutable.

          Did Hassan’s AG office send an investigator to interview us? No. To interview the guy? No. Place a 72 hour hold on his detention while they investigate? No. But they had an investigator in our polling place earlier in the day measuring the distance between the rows of voting booths, checking all the roped-off areas, and checking off that we had posted all the required election law posters, in case some snowflake melts because the third election law poster wasn’t visible.

          The guy posted bail the next morning and he skipped town.

          It has been 10 months since the election, including a change in administration. Has the AG’s office done anything with this case? Not that I’m aware of.

          And when asked about Voter Fraud, the answer is “there have been no prosecutions” and the conclusion drawn from that is that “it must not be real.” I wonder why? Do you see why we get a little angry about this whole thing?

          • roger

            I don’t disagreee with the assertion that there is voter fraud, it does happen. But I don’t believe it’s as wide spread as it’s advertised.

          • Bryan W

            And IMO that is a valid, legitimate stance. They only way to know for sure is to actually investigate the problems when they are reported, and follow the law. We have had a string of AG officials here who are unwilling to even investigate. Yet they jump immediately if anyone whispers “denied my right to vote” – no matter what the reason is or how specious it is on its face. I’ve seen it happen.

Previous post:

Next post: