I do not profess to know the finer details of New Hampshire election law, though more perhaps than the husband of the former State Senator who sat on the election law committee, Elliot Lasky. Mr. Bette Lasky was caught stealing political signs, a clear violation of election law. (I guess Bette didn’t bring that work home with her.)
The Nashua Police have elected not to charge Mr. Bette Lasky with the crime he committed despite the overwhelming evidence against him. Is it because he is the husband of their former State Senator? Or is it because article 11 of the New Hampshire Constitution, properly enforced, would prohibit Elliot from voting in New Hampshire if convicted of the crime.
The relevant part of Article 11 states
[…] No person shall have the right to vote under the constitution of this state who has been convicted of treason, bribery or any willful violation of the election laws of this state or of the United States; but the supreme court, on notice of the attorney general, restore the privilege to vote to any person who may have forfeited it by conviction of such offenses. [emphasis mine]
How problematic would that be? Mr. Bette Lasky loses his right to vote and has to beg the AG of a Democrat governor to go to the State Supreme court to get the privilege restored. Lots of press. Not pretty business that.
Someone could still file a complaint.
Or is it a moot point. His wife Bette, lost, and we can by all rights lay blame at the feet of the sign stealer. Some will see that as satisfaction enough, justice served, ironic even, don’t you think?
But by my thinking, nothing stops a persistent problem like sign stealing more than the acute application of constitutional law. If Democrats started losing the right to vote, the casual abuse might promptly go out of style–at least with the more prominent looters in the community. Sign stealers would henceforth be like bands of suicide bombers directed by cell leaders who never actually stole signs themselves. Disposable acolytes (college students) sent on self-destructive missions that if compromised would result in their prohibition from voting in-state. (And then maybe they’d just vote on their own for a change?)
It’s something to consider.
Of course, if we enforced that law, the next thing you know we’d be prosecuting voter fraud and where would that lead us? My guess is another 50 years of Republican majorities in our state legislature though that might be a moot point as well. Ray Buckley and a few years of progressive Democrat overreach seem to have done that for us already.
No reason not to enforce the law, though, if you take my meaning.