If you have been following New Hampshire politics this year, you know that House Bill 1264 became law. HB 1264 is intended to end the undemocratic practice of allowing out-of-state residents to vote in New Hampshire elections.
Once HB 1264 becomes effective the act of voting in New Hampshire will be deemed a declaration by the voter that he or she is a New Hampshire resident. This, obviously, will dissuade drive-by voting (which massively favors Democrats).
Note what I just wrote: “[o]nce HB 1264 becomes effective.” HB 1264 originally was intended to be in effect during the 2018 elections. But the New Hampshire Senate amended the bill to delay the effective date until the 2019 elections. And the House went along with the amendment.
I have been scratching my head, wondering why the Legislature would do something so boneheaded – essentially allowing out-of-Staters to steal elections in 2018 as they did in 2016.
I looked at the Senate debate on HB 1264, and it appears to me that the New Hampshire Department of Justice snookered State Senator Regina Birdsell.
As best I can tell, Birdsell explained the amendment was: “based on the litigation of SB 3. We’re hoping it will be through litigation by that time.”
And, in response to a follow-up question seeking clarification as to the purpose of delaying the effective date until after the 2018 elections, Birdsell said, “I want to make sure the Attorney General has enough people to work on it.”
Of course, it’s possible that Birdsell was using the royal “we” when she said, “we’re hoping it will be through litigation by that time.” It is much more likely, however, that “we” refers to the New Hampshire Department of Justice.
My guess is that one or more of the attorneys in the New Hampshire DOJ approached Birdsell and convinced her to delay the effective date of HB 1264 based on the bogus argument or arguments that litigation over Senate Bill 3 needed to be resolved before HB 1264 could become effective (totally untrue) and/or that the DOJ did not have the resources to simultaneously defend both SB 3 and HB 1264 (again, totally untrue).
Why would some attorney or attorneys at DOJ do this? Because our State DOJ has its equivalents of Peter Strzok, Bruce Ohr, Andrew McCabe, etcetera, etcetera etcetera, who want to help elect Democrats and so do not want HB 1264 to become law.
Delaying the effective date of HB 1264 accomplishes this objective in two ways. One is that the Democrats may win veto-proof majorities in the House and Senate in 2018, which obviously would allow them to repeal the law. The other is that once the trial court rules against SB 3 (which is a near certainty) the DOJ will try to convince Birdsell and company (who presumably believe they are getting legitimate legal advice, and not being played) that HB 1264 must be further delayed until an appeal to the New Hampshire Supreme Court is decided.
In sum, there was no legitimate legal reason to delay the effective date of HB 1264. Apparently, what happened is that some attorney or attorneys snookered the State Senate and the House was asleep at the switch. And our wonderful Attorney General is letting the inmates run the asylum.