This seems like a no-brainer of a poll question for this audience, but it seems like a good idea. SB3 was recently thrown out (for good and bad), while states nationwide are wrestling with ensuring election integrity. ID is an important part of the puzzle.
We’ve seen equipment issues, chain of custody issues, folded mail-in ballot fails, and ongoing audits, and whether you like them or not, these show flaws in the system that should not be dismissed as partisan problems.
Lefties will rant; you’re just pushing stop the steal, Trump-loving blah-blah-blah. No, actually, I’m not. It’s the same message we’ve supported for years. We are talking about making sure every legitimate vote counts.
Related: What NH Should do now that its Supreme Court has tossed the SB3 Voter Law
I think I heard the Dems say something similar about a gazillion times (minus the legitimate, of course).
What good is a system that loses votes or misplaces votes? One that when it receives legitimate votes the people, processes, or equipment fail to account for what that voter chose, even if not through malice but due to systemic flaws?
It’s not fraud, but it sure as hell isn’t “every vote counts.” If that’s the goal, then everyone needs to step back from their ideological war rooms and ask themselves if they want every vote to count or just votes that result in their side winning?
We know the answer, so you can continue to lie but we’ll continue to push for something better.
A very real part of that is ensuring that those votes are not diluted by people who should be voting somewhere else; after all, the vote by mail mandate is supposed to make voting easier, not voting wherever a party thinks they need those votes. The latter is the opposite of making every vote count; it erases legitimate votes by allowing illegitimate ones.
Part of the cure for that is understanding that incorporated things and places have the right to ensure the integrity not just of the ballot but the voters.
The NH Democrat party will not let just anyone from anywhere, even if they happen to be here that day, vote for their party chairman or officers. No corporation is ever going to allow anyone but a shareholder to vote for members of their board, nor would any nonprofit or NGO accept the ballots of people in town for the day from who knows where to pick the people who will decide their funding priorities and future.
But that is exactly the opinion of some regarding town, county, state, and even federal elections in the Granite State. Precaution taken in any of the aforementioned is considered essential while in the latter are shamed as intimidation and vote suppression when the stakes are not just who or how our money is spent but how much power we retain as citizens over our own lives.
The University of New Hampshire has stricter rules regarding residency for in-state tuition eligibility than the election process that chooses the people who may take your taxpayer dollars and give them to UNH.
And it is not vote-suppression to ask out-of-state tuition-paying students to vote in the town, county, or district that made them ineligible for in-state tuition.
And now we stand in the shadow of the death of the state’s poorly crafted voter ID law (SB3). A law that allowed student ID as proof of residency even if you paid out-of-state tuition.
That law must now be replaced with something that could be pushed to and survive a test in the US Supreme Court (without discussing the odds that we may ever find a governor or AG willing to push it that far). We should assume Sununu’s feckless state supreme court will toe the establishment line so we need a bill we can take further.
But first, we need a law and it must require some proof that you are legible to vote and should not be voting somewhere else instead of here.
Do we need or want a photo ID to prove you live here to vote here?
This poll is open until midnight tomorrow night. Please vote and share.
[yop_poll id=”25″]