Some Thoughts on the House Bill 1264 Memoranda Filed With the Supreme Court — Part III - Granite Grok

Some Thoughts on the House Bill 1264 Memoranda Filed With the Supreme Court — Part III

clean-electionsDEMOCRAT STATE SENATORS WOODBURN, SOUCY, AND FELTES 

As I discussed in Part I, the primary argument of these Democrat State Senators —like the ACLU and like the Democrat Executive Councilors— is that the Court should not return answers to the questions.  Because I already addressed this argument in my discussion of the Attorney General’s memorandum in Part I, I will not repeat it here.

The Democrat State Senators argue that House Bill 1264 violates Part I, Article 11 because Part I, Article 11 requires the State to maintain two class of domiciliary: resident and nonresident.  This argument is the same argument advanced by the ACLU and so can be answered in the same manner.

What the Democrat State Senators are actually arguing is that a nonresident who qualifies as a domiciliary has a right under Part I, Article 11 not just to vote in New Hampshire but to vote in New Hampshire and remain a nonresident.  

There is no such right in Part I, Article 11.  A domiciliary has only the right to vote in New Hampshire elections.  There is no language in Part I, Article 11 that creates two classes of domiciliary —resident and nonresident— and requires the Legislature to maintain a statutory distinction between the two.

In other words, House Bill 1264 does not burden the right to vote.  It burdens the make-believe, fictitious right to vote and remain a nonresident. 

The Democrat State Senators’ descriptions of the Newberger and Guare cases can only be described as willfully misleading.  

The Newburger court did not rule that nonresidents have a right to vote in New Hampshire and remain nonresidents.  The Newburger holding was that voting could not be limited to only voters with an intention to remain in New Hampshire indefinitely.  Assuming for the sake of analysis that this 1972 federal district court case is a correct expression of federal constitutional law, it is not transgressed by House Bill 1264 because House Bill 1264 has nothing to do with voter eligibility, never mind imposing an indefinite intention test for voter eligibility.

The law in issue in the Guare case did not “suggest[] that a voter must possess a New Hampshire driver’s license in order to vote,” and was not deemed unconstitutional on that basis.  Rather, the Supreme Court —as I discussed in my memorandum— ignored its own rules of statutory interpretation and interpreted the law as willfully providing voters false information, and deemed it unconstitutional on that basis.  House Bill 1264 —contrary to what the Democrat State Senators argue— does not make possessing a New Hampshire’s driver’s license an “actual requirement” to vote.  As I explained in my memorandum regarding the bogus argument that House Bill 1264 is a poll tax:

… House Bill 1264 does not require a voter to prove that he or she has obtained a New Hampshire’s driver’s license or registered his or her car in New Hampshire in order to vote. 

Characterizing House Bill 1264 as a post-election poll tax does not solve the problem.  House Bill 1264 does not negate the votes of voters who after voting fail to comply with RSA 263:35 or RSA 261:45.

The Democrat State Senators —like the ACLU— expressly argue that House Bill 1264 is a poll tax.  As I explained in my memorandum:

The obvious problem with arguing that House Bill 1264 is a poll tax is that House Bill 1264 does not require the payment of any tax or fee or fine to vote.  More specifically, House Bill 1264 does not require a voter to prove that he or she has obtained a New Hampshire’s driver’s license or registered his or her car in New Hampshire in order to vote. 

Characterizing House Bill 1264 as a post-election poll tax does not solve the problem.  House Bill 1264 does not negate the votes of voters who after voting fail to comply with RSA 263:35 or RSA 261:45.

The Democrat State Senators —like the ACLU— argue that House Bill 1264 violates equal protection because it does not deem nonresident college students who do not vote in New Hampshire residents.  What I said with respect to the ACLU argument applies equally here.  To state the argument is to demolish it because it is so nonsensical.  No rational person would consider treating nonresident college students as nonresidents and resident college students as residents to be a violation of equal protection.  

Originally posted at the Ed Mosca Blog

>