What is the role of the Supreme Court at the state or federal level? The U.S. Supreme Court’s official website says, “First, as the highest court in the land (or state), it is the court of last resort for those looking for justice. Second, due to its power of judicial review, it plays an important role in ensuring that each branch of government recognizes the limits of its own power.”
The oath of office for every New Hampshire civil employee includes,
“I do solemnly swear that I will bear faith and true allegiance to the United States of America and the state of New Hampshire, and will support the constitution thereof. So help me God.”
Dan Richard, a constitutional scholar from New Hampshire who has brought a case against the state, claims that our election laws have been illegally altered by the executive or legislative branches over the years without the consent of the voters, thereby making them unconstitutional.
We want to thank Robbin MacVittie for this Contribution – Please direct yours to Editor@GraniteGrok.com.
You can review our ‘Op-Ed Guidelines‘ on the FAQ Page.
Since all government employees are bound to uphold the constitution, both federal and state, the rules, according to the New Hampshire Constitution, Part 2, (Art.) 100, cannot be changed without a two-thirds vote of Granite State voters. Richard’s case alleges that such significant election changes have been implemented in New Hampshire without the consent of the citizens, going as far back as 1942.
To illustrate, here is the original text of the NH State Constitution, Part 2:
(Art.) 30. (Inhabitant Defined.): “And every person, qualified as the constitution provides, shall be considered an inhabitant for the purpose of being elected into any office or place within this state, in the town, or ward, where he dwelleth and has his home.”
But in 1976, the wording was unconstitutionally amended to read, “…where he is domiciled.” This changed the definition of not only who can hold office but also who is considered an individual who can vote. Without the consent of the voters, this opened the door for those college students who pay out-of-state tuition, for example, to vote in New Hampshire elections.
Part 1, (Art.) 11, deals with “Elections and Elective Franchises” and has been amended several times without the “consent of the voters,” most significantly in reference to absentee ballots. Originally, every absentee ballot needed to be in a sealed, signed and notarized envelope to ensure that absentee voters were verifiable in the same manner that in-person voters were, for equal protection under the law. Prior to 1979, any absentee ballots without notarized signatures were rejected.
Richard points out that since then, un-notarized absentee ballots have been unconstitutional and should not have been counted.
Meanwhile, voting machines were first introduced in New Hampshire in 1979 on a “trial” basis. Richard points out that Part 2, (Art.) 32, of the NH State Constitution, requires the moderator in each voting district to “sort and count” the votes in order to certify the results. Machines can usually count the votes but cannot sort them. That needs to be done by a human being, specifically the moderator.
And the reliability of voting machines has been called into question by instances like the recount of votes and audit of voting machines after the 2020 election in Windham, which demonstrated wide discrepancies, particularly due to folds in absentee ballots. Certain states, like Massachusetts and Arizona, have adopted the use of voting machines by having them authorized by the consent of their voters.
The State of New Hampshire has not. So far, the state Supreme Court has put off addressing these concerns, which are very important for the integrity of our voting system.
Why?
