Having lost the battle over allowing non-Republicans to vote in the Republican Primary, objectors, lead by Karen Testerman, have filed suit in District Court over alledged violations of state and federal law.
Plaiintiffs have delivered the suit, exhibits, and a Motion for Expedited Consideration or Preliminary Injunctive Relief which you can review at their respective links.
The Case
The asuumption is that by violating state laws and rules with regard to when citizens can change their party affiliation for the purpose of voting these downstream impacts lead to additional violation of election law, corrupting the very process by which the state chooses its representatives to the elctrocal College.
I feel like I’ve not quite framed that as preciely as the suit implies but that seems to be the gist of it and I know you will all correct me if I got that 30,000 foot generalization wrong. We’re taking about elections, primaries, and process which is summarized (IMO) in the request for expeditied injunctive relief.
The controversy and constitutional violations are two-fold; first, the defendants misused a statute specifically designed for “state offices” for a federal presidential primary. Secondly, regardless of whether the statute is for a state or federal primary election, the defendants violated the New Hampshire Change of Registration statute of RSA 654:34-IV, by permitting a change in political affiliations well beyond the first Wednesday of June, setting an unlawful date of October 6, 2023.
The argument that the practice of alowing party flips to meddle in primaries has been permitted for decades is, according to Plaintiffs, contradicted by NH RSA 654:34-IV.
“No person, who is already registered to vote, whether his party membership has been previously registered ornot, shall affiliation with a party ordisaffiliate from aparty between the first Wednesday in June and the daybefore the state primary election”. id
Palintiffs cite a number of references in support of their cause in the court filings, all of which – at least on paper – appear to give them grounds to challenge what has just been done becasue we’ve been doing it though I am fuzzy on other points with which Defendants and the Court will have to wrestle.
This all began over the matter of open primaries and efforts to close them. I spoke to NHGOP Chairman Ager at the FITN Summit after the last row. He told me he had submitted as requested the disputed resolution receiving a similar response from the Secretary of State. That the referendum passed by the party delegates as worded violated state statue.
Plaintiffs have returned to present state stautue in conjunction with it’s implied affect of primaries, State elections, and Federal and Constitutional law to challenge that.
Again, a 30,000 foot summation. Read the docs to dig into the weeds and then let us know what you think.
Will it stand up to scrutiny? Can it?
We’d love your thoughts.
Plaintiffs are Karen Testerman, Lynn-Diane Briggs, and Wayne Paul Saya, Sr.
