N.H. Democrats Lying – Telling Nonresidents They Can Vote In N.H. and Remain Nonresidents - Granite Grok

N.H. Democrats Lying – Telling Nonresidents They Can Vote In N.H. and Remain Nonresidents

Student clipboard peace sign

This:

And this is what WORMington is linking to:

This is a LIE.

As I explained in a previous post about the law (HB 1264) that made the act of voting in New Hampshire (declaring domicile in New Hampshire) a declaration of residency in New Hampshire, subjecting the voter to all of the responsibilities of a resident (including obtaining a New Hampshire driver’s license):

Once HB 1264 became effective (July, 2019), the DemocRATS sued in federal court. Initially, they made the same arguments they made before the New Hampshire Supreme Court … that HB 1264 was an unconstitutional “poll tax,” discriminated against college students, blah, blah, blah. These are obviously bullish*t arguments. How can it be constitutional for every other State to require residency to vote or say that the act of voting is a declaration of residency, but not for New Hampshire? To ask the question is to answer it.

So the DemocRATS totally reversed themselves in federal court and introduced the new argument that HB 1264 did not change the law with respect to college students and other drive-by voters:

One of the new arguments is that drive-by voters … nonresident college students and nonresident campaign workers … can vote in New Hampshire and remain nonresidents because RSA 259:88 is a loophole.

This argument is so absurd that it can fairly be called a LIE.

To read RSA 259:88 the way the N.H. Democrats are now urging it should be read would make it the proverbial exception that swallows the rule. Nonresidents could vote in New Hampshire and then take the position: “I am claiming residence in another State for the purpose of not claiming residence in New Hampshire,” which obviously would make HB 1264 meaningless.

It is a well settled rule that courts will not interpret statutes to produce an absurd result. To read RSA 259:88 the way that the Democrats are now urging would mean that there was no point or purpose in passing HB 1264. It would turn an objective test for residency into a subjective test. It would mean that the law remains what it was before HB 1264 being passed despite HB 1264 being passed to change the law.

As I noted in the prior post: ” … you could only claim to be a resident of another State under RSA 259:88 if you were claiming to be domiciled there and NOT domiciled in New Hampshire” … “ But if you are claiming to be domiciled in (a resident of) another State and part of the class protected by RSA 259:88, you cannot also claim to be domiciled in New Hampshire and eligible to vote in New Hampshire. It’s one or the other.

By the way, WORMington works for Senator Jeannie’s law firm and is running for Executive Council to replace #VolinskyAgenda.