I confess I am surprised. The New Hampshire Attorney General will appeal the decision earlier this week, that would have suspended the new voter registration requirements for Domicile to vote in New Hampshire.
One quick note: The articel suggests that the ruling had no affect on the Voter ID law, but I would take issue with that. On paper the ID law is not affected, but if domicile does not matter, then Voter ID does not do everything it is intended to do. The point of Voter ID is to ensure that the person voting is the person they claim to be; a legal, eligible voter, and state resident of the precinct in which they are voting. If it makes no difference where you are from, then all the ID law does is affirm that the out of state voter stealing New Hampshire votes is who they say they are. I have called it a blow to Voter ID law because I believe it is. And I’m not alone.
To quote Secretary of State Bill Gardner, who apparently supports the Domicile law as passed…
“You can be a resident of many places but with domicile, you are establishing one unique place as your home to the exclusion of all others,” Gardner said. “If you establish domicile here, it means something, it means you have certain rights and responsibilities.”
Domicile does matter.
Seacoast Online also reports that Lewis did not believe the law passed constitutional muster. He can’t mean the US Constitution. The Supreme court upheld the Indiana ID law and their domicile requirements seem far more restrictive regarding ID and multiple residence than New Hampshire’s. And it is clear States have the right to make these definitions.
Clair Ebel, from the ACLU, has decided that this is not the case, and that there is even an equal protection issue. Of course, this is the same ACLU that declared that Litchfield parents objecting to a curriculum that relies on books with vulgar language, sex, and drug use was censorship. On the upside, that same ACLU agreed with me that the Sullivan-Hassan bill to regulate political speech--that it was outrageous and unconstitutional.
I guess we’ll have to disagree on the Domicile, but then Secretary of State Bill Gardner and I agree. Stranger things could happen.
Overall I am happy to see the AG appealing the decision. I truly did not expect that. I hope they follow it through as far as it needs to go, and are diligent in their challenge.
And while they probably wont question Judge Lewis potential for bias on this matter, we at Granite Grok will. His wife was a major Democrat donor. He has donated to Democrats in the distant past himself. His decision is one Democrats wanted. These student voters could tip the balance on a constitutional amendment affecting New Hampshire judges, on the future ability of Democrats to pursue an income tax, and could affect the outcome of local races, the Governors race, and even tip a crucial swing state for Obama.
It seems like too much benefit from one election for him to just let it ride.
We’ll be watching.
