When Governor Sununu signed HB1569 into law, the Proglodytes lost their minds. How dare you require proof of citizenship for first-time voter registration? This is an outrage. People will be turned away and denied their right to vote. Quick question for the ACLU? Where are the lawsuits against requiring the same information for other purposes?
You need a Birth Certificate to get Social Security or other pension benefits. It is necessary to get a passport if you intend to travel outside the country (which, ironically, is how the illegals we’re preventing from voting got here). Driver’s Licenses, Real IDs, Marriage licenses, enrolling in school, joining the military, and a host of other scenarios require you to present something that everyone has or should be able to obtain.
A Birth Certificate. Suppose you can’t obtain an original copy to prove you’re an American citizen. In that case, I have no problem with you not being able to vote (passports and naturalization papers are also accepted as proof).
The ACLU is just stalling, much like the groups they represent, like The League of Women Voters, which could one day be comprised entirely of men, who argue that a basic picture ID to vote is an injustice. However, you need the same ID to access any taxpayer-funded services labeled as a right.
These documents are critical as proof of identity, and it is not a hardship, nor does it deprive anyone of anything they are entitled to if they can’t produce them.
The partisan ACLU disagrees. It is leading a lawsuit to block any requirement and, as part of that process, has demanded and been granted access to the State’s registered voter database.
A federal court judge is ordering the New Hampshire Secretary of State to share large portions of a confidential voter database with a group of plaintiffs who argued they need access to the records to prove a new state voting law is unconstitutional.
The database at issue is an expansive file, maintained by the state, that contains the names, addresses, voting history and a cache of other information about people who have cast ballots in New Hampshire — essentially, everything except who people actually voted for.
Isn’t this the kind of information that the same people were screaming about DOGE gaining access to? They shrieked about everything DOGE tries to access, so I’ll go with yes. However, much of this is publicly available or on sale. The ACLU could have purchased the same list from the NH Democratic party for about 30K or from the State of New Hampshire, but a Judge just gave it to them for free.
The State has appealed, primarily on privacy concerns, so that will slow things down but the ACLU is after specific information.
Of key interest for the ACLU are records about how people registered to vote in past elections, including if they showed proof of citizenship, or if they signed sworn affidavits attesting to their qualifications. Access to the database would give plaintiffs data on how many people may be affected by the new law.
I’d wager the majority of people trying to vote who have had to fill out affidavits are out-of-state college kids and drive-by voters from Vermont and Massachusetts. We get a lot of those. Few, if any, will be non-citizens, but the ACLU will attempt to use the affidavit number to argue that HB1569 creates an unconstitutional burden … on people who should not be constitutionally able (the NH State Constitution) to vote in the Granite State.
That’s not a burden when they can vote in their state, which they can.
And the lawsuit against the very reasonable request for proof of citizenship continues. While it does, we should ask when the ACLU plans to sue the government for expecting similar documents for Marriage, Pension Benefits (including replacing a lost Social Security Card), REAL ID (which I believe they support), and so on.
Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?
