So … as if it is not already bad enough that we have Governor Sununu giving the Democrats “no-excuse” absentee voting AND we have Democrats in Nashua and likely elsewhere exploiting COVID-absentee-voting to engage in absentee-ballot-request-harvesting … New Hampshire elections are now also under attack from a Washington, DC Democrat-Super-Lawyer.
Next, let’s meet the local lawyer, through whom DC-Lawyer Elias is doing his dirty work … Steven J. Dutton, a lawyer with the Manchester law firm, McLane Middleton:
The lawsuit is lengthy. So let’s focus on two of the more egregious requests for “relief” the DC-Democrat-Super-Layer and his local henchman are asking for:
11) Preliminarily and permanently enjoining Defendants, their respective agents, officers, employees, and successors, and all persons acting in concert with each or any of them, from enforcing the Voter Assistance Ban, allowing voters to designate any third party to assist in the collection and submission of their absentee ballots;
The so-called “Voter Assistance Ban” refers to New Hampshire law requiring … with certain exceptions … the absentee voter to personally return his ballot.
RSA 657:17 III. The city or town clerk, or ward clerk on election day at the polls, shall not accept an absentee ballot from a delivery agent unless the delivery agent completes a form provided by the secretary of state, which shall be maintained by the city or town clerk, and the delivery agent presents a government-issued photo identification or has his or her identity verified by the city or town clerk. Absentee ballots delivered through the mail or by the voter’s delivery agent shall be received by the town, city, or ward clerk no later than 5:00 p.m. on the day of the election. A delivery agent who is assisting a voter who is blind or who has a disability pursuant to this section may not personally deliver more than 4 absentee ballots in any election, unless the delivery agent is a nursing home or residential care facility administrator, an administrator designee, or a family member, each as authorized by this section.
This makes “ballot harvesting” more difficult. While the Democrat ballot-harvesters can still keep track of the ballots they induced sham voters to obtain and “assist” these sham voters in filling these ballots out the “right way”:
they cannot return more than four at a time. They have to depend on the sham voters, who likely would not have bothered voting … absent “assistance” from Democrats like Brenna Rose … to return their own ballots.
So … to avoid having to depend on the sham voters, who never would have bothered requesting absentee ballots in the first place, to take the time and effort to return their ballots … DC-Super-Lawyer and his henchman are asking the Court to order that cities and town throughout New Hampshire must accept however many ballots Brenna Rose and her ilk can harvest:
143. But for the Voter Assistance Ban, Plaintiff and its members could and would ensure that absentee voting is safe and reliable for many voters by collecting and timely returning voters’ absentee ballots. And it is now more critical than ever that organizations such as Plaintiff be allowed to help voters safely express themselves at the ballot box.
As #SenileJoe would say … or at least would have said when he still had some of his wits … this is a big f*cking deal: Ballot-harvesting is estimated to have added 250,000 Democrat votes in just ONE county in California, wiping out the GOP.
The next and last request (that I will discuss in this post) for “relief”, DC-Super-Lawyer and his henchman have requested is to require cities and towns to accept “post-election” ballots (the phrase is mine not theirs):
8) Preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendant Gardner and his respective agents, officers, employees, and successors, and all persons acting in concert with each or any of them, from rejecting ballots that are postmarked on or before Election Day and arrive at the clerk’s office within a reasonable period of time after Election Day, subject to the definition of “postmarked” noted herein;
The “definition of ‘postmarked’” stands postmarked on its head. There is no requirement that the ballot actually show that it was received by the Post Office before the election ended. Instead, it would have to be “proved” that the ballot was not mailed until after the election … which needless to say is IMPOSSIBLE:
7 The term “postmark” refers to any type of imprint applied by USPS to indicate the location and date USPS accepts custody of a piece of mail, including intelligent mail bar codes, circular stamps, or other tracking marks. Where a ballot does not bear a postmark date, the election official reviewing the ballot should presume that it was mailed on or before Election Day unless the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates it was mailed later. Further, election officials can also send election mail using intelligent mail barcodes, which allows for tracking of individual mail pieces as they enter the mail stream.
This would allow the NH-Democrats to continue voting after the election (who knows how many extra ballots they have requested and obtained just for that purpose) … knowing exactly how many votes they need to change the result … and force cities and towns to accept those “post-election” votes: Postmarks are not required for mailings bearing a permit, meter, or …
I encourage you to read the entire lawsuit. It is a veritable wish-list of #VoterFraud measures.
Finally, the lawsuit is baseless. It is based on junk-science and pseudo-law. The problem is this may not matter because the New Hampshire bench is full of activist Democrat judges and the New Hampshire Department of Justice is full of Democrat lawyers.
Our only hope may be if the Trump campaign gets involved.