A Three -Year Long Challenge of New Hampshire’s Electronic Voting Machines Makes It to The NH Supreme Court

Auburn, NH – On Monday, October 30, 2023, the New Hampshire Supreme Court, on their own initiative, scheduled oral arguments for November 29, 2023, at 9 a.m., in a highly-anticipated election law case of Daniel Richard vs. Governor Chris Sununu, et al.

Involving the executive and legislature branches of government repeatedly violating the voting rights of Mr. Richard and the people of this State by altering the mandatory election provisions of the Constitution of New Hampshire established by the people by legislative fiat. This case poses the following questions.

Who is qualified to voter in New Hampshire?
Who is qualified to vote absentee in this State?
Who is required to “sort,” “count” and certify the votes in the towns and cities?
Are voting machines constitutional in N.H?
Can the legislature delegate its law-making power under the State and U.S. Constitutions to an unelected body of bureaucrats (the NH Ballot Law Commission) to make election laws (including voting machine laws), and the ability to suspend State and Federal election laws?
The use of vote tabulation equipment to conceal the counting of un-verified and uncertified absentee ballots and the illegal certification of the election results.

Daniel Richard, a constitutional scholar from New Hampshire, has brought a case against the state, which claims that N.H. election laws have been illegally altered by the executive and legislative branches of the state government over the years without the consent of the voters, thereby making the legislature’s actions unconstitutional.

Richard contends that the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, section 4, delegates to the legislatures of the several states the duty to establish the time, manner and place for holding federal elections. The United States Supreme Court’s recent opinion decided June 27, 2023, in Moore v. Harper, 600 U.S.___ (2023) now reinforces Mr. Richard’s case, as Moore v. Harper is now a binding precedent on all election law cases in the 50 states.

“Nothing in [the Elections] Clause instructs, nor has this Court ever held, that a

state legislature may prescribe regulations on the time, place, and manner of

holding federal elections in defiance of provisions of the State’s constitution.”

Cited from Arizona State legislature v. Arizona independent redistricting

commission, 576 U. S., at 817–818 (majority opinion) Pg. 18… Moore v. Harper, 600 U.S.___ (2023)