The State Supreme Court has ruled (in its analysis of HB1264, which the governor then signed yesterday) that out-of-state college students do not have more rights than actual citizens of New Hampshire. They are not entitled to a special exclusion from the responsibilities actual residents accept including registering vehicles in the Granite State or obtaining a New Hampshire driver’s license. And asking these things of them is not a poll tax.
This is as it should be but New Hampshire Democrats have been stealing elections from Granite Staters for years and in spite of the court’s opinion they are ramping up to try and rob you of at least one more.
The so-called party of ‘stop outside money‘ and “end out-of-state influence” is colluding with out-of-state infiltrators to influence local elections. The fact that a bill passed and signed to fix this doesn’t go into force until after the November election does not change that reality.
The State Supreme Court is very clear in its majority opinion.
Before we proceed to address specific arguments advanced in support of or in opposition to HB 1264, we observe that the fundamental issue posed by the questions submitted is whether the State or Federal Constitution requires the State of New Hampshire to permit persons to vote in this state who seek to claim residency here only for voting purposes while eschewing this status for other purposes. We have no hesitancy in opining that not only does New Hampshire have no such constitutional obligation but, quite the contrary, it has a compelling state interest not to do so.
Flooding local and state level elections with thousands of non-resident votes have and will deny you not just the ability to choose the candidate but to remove them once in office.
“… it is apparent that the premise of the opponents’ arguments (against hb1264) is that New Hampshire is required to have a special rule of domicile solely for voting purposes, so that persons are allowed to vote here without assuming the other obligations of citizenship normally imposed. The opponents of the bill have not cited, nor are we aware of, any authority supporting such a requirement under the Federal Constitution or the constitution of any state.
Moreover, even assuming that the elimination of RSA 654:1, I’s “special” domicile rule for voting purposes that would result from the enactment of HB 1264 could be viewed as imposing a “burden“ on those voters who now are able to take advantage of that special rule, but who will no longer be able to do so once the definitions of “domicile” and “residence” are made equivalent, the State has a compelling justirication for making that change. The Supreme Court and other courts have repeatedly emphasized that insuring that those who are permitted to vote are bona fide residents who share a community of interest with other citizens of the jurisdiction is a legitimate concern of the highest order.” (citations removed)
Stay with me, it gets better.
Insuring a community of interest among voters and residents promotes confidence in political outcomes and guards against a distortion of the political community. In Dunn, Justice Marshall aptly described one of the harms against which residency requirements are designed to protect:
The impurities feared . . . all involve voting by nonresidents, either singly or in groups. The main concern is that nonresidents will temporarily invade the State or county, falsely swear that they are residents to become eligible to vote, and, by voting, allow a candidate to win by fraud. Surelv the prevention of such fraud is a legitimate and compelling government goal.
Dunn, 405 U.S. at 345 (emphasis added); see also Wit, 306 F.3d at 1263 (noting, in a related context, that “some political organizations might well find it in their interests to attempt to register large numbers of persons with only marginal connections to the electoral district”). These potential aberrations in voting behaviors severely undermine notions of representative government.
By advocating for the stuffing of your ballot boxes with votes by out-of-state tuition-paying students who can’t convince UNH that they intend to live here the New Hampshire Democrat Party is undermining representative government in the Granite State.
The tweet from Representative Frost proves the point. It also affirms that power is more important to them than the integrity of the process or the will of actual residents. They mean to rule you, to force their will upon you, and if that means stealing elections to get there so be it.
None of this surprises us. We’ve been chronicling it here for years. And while this bald admonition to abuse the system in pursuit of power is not unexpected it is fortuitous in this context. Who among the Democrats agrees with Ms. Frost? Who on the left will denounce the plot?
Are you on board with robbing actual residents of their voice or not?
Every Republican running for office should include that in their platform or priorities for office, backed by the opinion of the state supreme court.
In other words, use it to get out the vote of actual residents of our state.
One more pull quote for today and I’ll close.
Third, and most importantly, even if the act of registering to vote were assumed to be the most likely cause of an official inquiry designed to enforce compliance with the other responsibilities of residency, the State’s compelling interest in insuring bona fide residency for voting purposes provides adequate justification for doing so. Simply put, the State may legitimately establish procedures by which persons who may be tempted to insincerely claim domicile for voting purposes are discouraged from doing so by the prospect that such a claim can result in their incurring the full panoply of obligations imposed on all other state residents. (Citations removed)
For years the progressive establishment, which includes more than a few (r)epublicans, have insisted that there are two standards for citizenship in New Hampshire. In both cases, actual residents “pay.” You pay to get a license, register a vehicle, license a dog, use the town dump, and so on. Then you pay when an overwhelmingly left-leaning contingent of non-resident students vote on issues and candidates who will then spend your tax dollars on policies and priorities that may not be yours.
Recall the quoted words of Justice Marshall. “The main concern is that nonresidents will temporarily invade the State or county, falsely swear that they are residents to become eligible to vote, and, by voting, allow a candidate to win by fraud.”
Democrat Sherry Frost is not alone in her support for this continued act of fraud. The entire Democrat Party Machine in New Hampshire relies on it to win office. And until the new law goes into force, and until the endless string of court challenges brought forward to stall the inevitable end to this theft of your constitutional rights, the only remedy is voter turnout.
If you want to take your elected offices back and with it your budgets and the fruits of your labors, Real™New Hampshire residents have to show up and vote in November. You have to vote in your town elections.
End the meddling and collusion by Democrats with these out-of-state special interests and their in-kind contribution at the ballot box.
It’s not their state. It belongs to you. Take it back.
Court Decision on HB1264
Nh Supreme Court Residency and Resident
H/T Susan Olsen – Tweet Screen Grab.
