It is with great sadness that I write this open letter. As a life-long Republican, I can’t tell you how disgusted I am with NHGOP leadership, which has allowed this corrupt voting practices to continue in this state.
We want to thank Daniel Richard for this Contribution – Please direct yours to Steve@GraniteGrok.com.
You can review our ‘Op-Ed Guidelines‘ on the FAQ Page.
I can tell you that we the people are sick and tired of being lied to and gaslighted. It’s time to expose the rats. Chris Sununu, the Governor has a Constitutional and fiduciary duty; Part II, article 41:
“The governor shall be responsible for the faithful execution of the laws. He may, by appropriate court action or proceeding brought in the name of the state, enforce compliance with any constitutional or legislative mandate, or restrain violation of any constitutional or legislative power, duty, or right, by any officer, department or agency of the state.”
John Formella, the Attorney General of the State of New Hampshire, is also a constitutional officer, and his duties are defined by RSA 21-M:5 Duties of the Attorney General:
“In addition to the powers, duties and functions otherwise vested by law, including RSA 7, in the attorney general, he shall:
I. Represent the public interest in the administration of the department of justice and be responsible to the governor, the general court, and the public for such administration.”
David Scanlon the Secretary of State of New Hampshire, is also a Constitutional Officer, Part II, article 67, and his duties are defined by the state legislature.
Sununu, Formella, and Scanlan, have violated their oaths of office and chosen to act in a wanton and reckless manner by knowingly defending unconstitutional acts of the legislature and installing unconstitutional unsafe voting practices across the state, rather than upholding the laws of land to which they have sworn an oath to faithfully defend and preserve the Constitution of New Hampshire and the United States Constitution.
The Attorney General’s Office is not a private law firm to defend the unauthorized actions of public officials. A.G. Formella has chosen to defend defective changes to our election laws, which he and his team of Attorneys knew or should have known were unconstitutional. By all accounts A.G. Formella is a smart Attorney, therefore he can-not claim ignorance of the law, as we all know is know excuse. Under NH RSA 99-D: In order to use tax-payer dollars to defend the unauthorized actions by state actors, the A.G. must examine the complaint and determine whether the allegation against a state actor was wanton or reckless.
Taxpayer dollars cannot be used if the A.G. finds that the state actor acted outside his authority,
Therefore, the person accused would have to obtain their legal counsel at their own expense. If the A.G. is named in the complaint, he has to recuse himself, and the Executive Council must decide whether to authorize the use of tax-payer dollars for legal defense.
Why did A.G. Formella not recuse himself? And why did the executive council not do its job? That has not happened in my election law challenge (NH Supreme Court case #2023-0097). How much of your tax dollars have they spent defending bad statutes that they know to be unconstitutional?
Asst. Attorney General Matthew Conley recently quoted by the NH Journal, “that ignorance of the law is no excuse”.
Well, let’s look at what the same Asst. A.G. had to say when he tried to mislead the NH Supreme Court on his brief in my case on pages 23, 24, 25, 26, where he cited The Opinion of the Justices, 44 N.H. 663 (1863) and the Opinion of Justices, 80 N.H. 595 (1921). Absentee voting was declared un-constitutional because their constitution of N.H. at that time required you vote in-person.
Absentee voting was ultimately established for only two reasons (absence from your voting district or because of physical disability.) So, in 1942, during WWII, absentee voting was established for the general elections, and it was amended again in 1956 to include primaries. The point is, the legislature under our State Constitution, the legislature can only propose amendments to the Constitution of N.H., and it CANNOT make changes to the State Constitution by legislative fiat.
So, in 2020 and now, the legislature and these state officers must follow the law. They are acting illegally and beyond the scope of their authority. Without rule of law, our country is anarchy! Our state leaders are acting like imperialists – ignoring the constitution and assuming personal power to make new unconstitutional voting practices to suit themselves. They forget we have rights.
The following are quotes are from the A.G. Supreme Court brief in my case. The case quotes make it plain to see that the State Actors, in my case, knew better, knew what they were doing was wrong, and what is worse, they conspired to deprive the people of this state of free, fair, and equal election process and that they plan on doing it again in the next election. It is time stand up and demand accountability. These are bad-faith actions by bad state actors.
(1). Copp v. Henniker, Mar 1, 1875:
Since 1863 it has been understood (as said by Ladd, J., in Copp v. Henniker, 55 N.H. 179, 193) “that the right of suffrage, established by the constitution, could not be exercised by proxy.” We are not able to answer the considerations by which the conclusions of the justices were supported in 1863. Counsel who have appeared before us in behalf of the proponents of the bill concede that it is beyond legislative power as to state officers. We, therefore, are constrained to advise the House of Representatives that the right of suffrage given by the Constitution cannot be exercised by proxy, i.e., by electors not present at the meeting. The occasion for legislation of this character in 1863 was the absence of many voters in the service of the army or navy of the United States during the Civil War. The difficulty was met in some states by constitutional amendment. Similar amendments have since been adopted in other states. Bulletin Mass. Const. Convention, Vol. 2, pp. 213, 214, 219-223.
(2). Opinion of the Justices (1921), cited 12 times most recently in McLinko v. Commonwealth Aug 2, 2022.
Decided March 29, 1921.
The legislature has no power to authorize the exercise of the right of suffrage, at the biennial elections of state officers, by electors who are not present at the polls either because of absence from the municipality in which the election is held or because of physical disability. The foregoing limitation has no application to legislation providing for the election of presidential electors. The duty of the supreme court to furnish advisory opinions is not limited to questions which may be adjudicated by the courts of the state. The validity of an election of a senator or a representative in congress which depends upon votes given by proxy is so doubtful that the court is unable to advise that legislation so providing would be valid.
The inquiry submitted is whether in the absence of power expressly given by constitutional amendment the legislature has power to provide as proposed. That such power does not exist was settled nearly fifty years ago not only in this state but in others with similar constitutional provisions as to all offices created by the several state constitutions.
My pending supreme court case question is—the courts have determined over a dozen times in earlier cases that legislature cannot alter or amend the mandatory election law provisions of the Constitution of N.H.
[this includes by expanding absentee voting, use of unreliable voting machines, 2024 purchase of non-secured electronic voting machines, doing away with voter-official inspections of absentee envelopes, and student and non-inhabitant inclusion with or without proper identification, AND whatever hanky-panky these career politicians can think up along with their Dominion, Accu-Vote and other corporate affiliates) …
These practices and patterns to improperly alter fair and equal voter rights – all require Constitutional amendment. So, does the legislature now have the power to alter state voting law by legislation? They claim before the NH Supreme Court that they may exercise “permissible legislative judgment.” Quoting Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald:
“I don’t understand what that term means. How is a permissible legislative judgement permissible if it exceeds the authority of the Constitution?
(See oral arguments starting at the 17min. mark): https://livestream.com/nhjb/events/10715419/videos/238780602
I submit the legislature has no such authority or power. This question has long been settled in various ways that the legislature and the state politicians may not ‘work around’ the mandatory constitutional requirement. Their power does not exist, and this question was settled more than one hundred fifty years ago — not only in this state but in others with similar constitutional provisions as to all offices created by the several state constitutions.