It was a Dartmouth student voter “indefinite intention” case challenging Hanover’s so-called requirement of students to affirm they were going to stay in NH after voting. A foolish question to ask a voter. They should have asked for proof of domicile. But that was not the agenda.
I believe the case was a set-up to protect non-resident student voters, something Hanover has always done. And I can conclude from the Court’s own words that the NH AG did not intend to make a coherent case on key points.
Newburger v. Peterson – interesting paragraph written by the three-judge panel:
“We conclude that the indefinite intention test has not been deliberately examined or foreclosed from examination. We therefore consider whether it is necessary to promote a compelling state interest. The justification, as concisely put by defendants, is that the state has a compelling interest in the promotion of a more intelligent vote, especially in small communities, by insuring that voters have a commitment to the community and a stake in the outcome of local elections. Such a vote and such a long-term commitment are belied, defendants argue, by a definite future intent to leave at a fixed time. We note that defendants (NH AG) do not rely on any state interest in preventing election frauds nor on any desire to prevent students from overwhelming a college community.”
There was never any discussion regarding if the student voters were qualified to vote in NH. But this later paragraph written by the Court assumes they were:
“We are sensitive to the compelling need “to preserve the basic conception of a political community”. Dunn v. Blumstein, supra, 92 S. Ct. at 1004. But the challenged New Hampshire law forces persons who are in every meaningful sense members of New Hampshire political communities to vote in communities elsewhere which they have long departed and with whose affairs they are no longer concerned, if indeed the former community still recognizes the right.”
Once again, the NH AG arguing the case never mentions the students, asked if they were intending to stay in NH after voting, were in fact, qualified to vote in NH in the first place.
The NH AG did not even try to define what would be “every meaningful sense” in NH, such as a driver’s license, rental property, electric bill.
The Court described a qualified student voter as having abandoned the previous domicile: “communities elsewhere which they have long departed and with whose affairs they are no longer concerned, if indeed the former community still recognizes the right.” As in, no current driver’s license or tax liability in another state.
Newburger v. Peterson is a “Durational Residency” case – not a “Domicile Case” it does not mention establishing a domicile, “every meaningful sense.”
My guess. That is the last thing the progressives wanted – a legal definition of “domicile” in 1972.
So, since 1972, Democrats, the NH Secretary of State, and NH AG have pretended this case let students vote here. The NH AG likes to avoid the dirty word, domicile, and ignores it for a phrase they use and prefer: “established a presence.”
Jump ahead to 2019.
Two Dartmouth students sue NH for the right to vote here instead of at their lawful domiciles.
This ORDER denies the NH AG’s MOTION to DISMISS.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT – DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Caroline Casey, et al.v.Civil No. 19-cv-149-JLNH Secretary of State, et al.
“In this voting rights case, two young New Hampshire voters and the New Hampshire Democratic Party challenge recent changes to New Hampshire’s statutory definitions of “resident” and “residence.”
First of all, this is not a “voting rights case.” It is in fact an “extra rights” case for these two Dartmouth students, described deceitfully as “two young NH voters.” They are voters and young, but not NH citizens. They both are keeping their out-of-state driver’s licenses.
States give licenses to citizens of their state. These two girls are both lawful residents of their home states, California and Arkansas. And have every right to vote there.
Unless progressive federal judge LaPlante offers NH citizens the right to vote in California and Arkansas – we have a problem. A 14th Amendment, equal rights problem.
Paragraph II in LaPlante’s ORDER:
“The defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied. The plaintiffs have standing, as the individual plaintiffs have sufficiently stated an injury-in-fact and all plaintiffs have identified injuries traceable to the Secretary of State and redressable by the requested relief. And, at this preliminary stage, the plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that the statutory changes unconstitutionally burden the right to vote.”
This ruling by the judge gives citizens of another state standing to sue NH? And in his nonsensical ORDER states the Dartmouth students have an “injury-in-fact?”
What, Arkansas and California will not let these girls vote by absentee? I don’t think so. Federal statutes provide for absentee voting – but this left-leaning judge doesn’t see it that way. It looks like his goal is – overwhelm NH with thousands of non-resident college students.
LaPlante looks like Maggie Hassen’s biggest supporter in her 1,017 vote “win.”
Isn’t that “overwhelming of college towns with student voters” mentioned by in Newburger v. Peterson in 1972?
And now it is here.
Our so-called NH election officials have had great success with their long-term goals.
And the defense in this case, did they mention there was no injury to the Dartmouth girls because they had every right to vote legally? That means – no harm – no standing – no case.
Not that I can find.
I mentioned this repeatedly in my MOTION to INTERVENE which the judge tossed. Why not allow my humble “facts in case” into this one? Or at lease let me plead my points of law and make fun of me?
Plaintiffs have standing and have stated claims under the
First, Fourteenth, Twenty-Fourth, and Twenty-Sixth Amendments.
Defendants’ motion to dismiss is DENIED.
Joseph N. Laplante
United States District Judge
Liberal judges, pathetic, weak, defenses by state officials = lost voting rights for NH citizens.
Only since 1972.