There is a voting rights suit moving up and down the judicial ladder in the Granite State. No, it’s not the typical left-wing, ACLU, students who can vote in other states should be allowed to vote here kind of thing. This one has already been to the State Supreme Court, back to the lower court, petitioned again to the High Court because the lower Court ignored its orders, and we’re back again (sort of).
Dan Richards vs. Chris Sununu (Richard v Sununu). You may have heard of it. We’ve published reams of court filings on the case, which the State Supreme Court has said has standing. Dan has charged that the state is breaking a list of state and federal laws and engaging in unconstitutional behavior. The basis for this is summarized in this pull quote from his most recent filing.
…challenging the Defendants (the state of NH’s) election practices, including the establishment of different practices and procedures statewide, unequal use of voting machines statewide, use of unverified absentee ballots, non-uniform voting procedures, and the ultra vires actions of the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission for federal elections.
Summarized, the State of New Hampshire has allowed “elections” to be conducted, with inconsistent procedures for how ballots are used, cast, and counted, and so on, which violates his rights (and yes, everyone else’s).
The Appellant alleges that these practices constitute criminal conduct under state election laws (e.g., RSA 657:24, prohibiting willful interference with voting rights, RSA 666:2 Official Malfeasance, RSA 666:3 Official Misconduct) and violations of federal election laws (e.g., 52 U.S.C. § 10101, by applying different standards, practice, or procedure different from the standards, practices, or procedures applied under such law or laws to other individuals within the same county, parish, or similar political subdivision of the State, and 52 U.S.C. § 20511, prohibiting voter intimidation or interference), as well as violations of procedural and substantive due process, equal protection under Part I, Articles 1, 11, and 12 of the New Hampshire Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and the Supremacy Clause.
The State Supreme Court, on appeal, remanded the case back to the trial court, which ignored the remand order, requiring Dan Richards to file with the State Supreme Court again in an effort to get the lower court to resume his case based on the matters with which the State Supreme Court stated he has standing. [Related: Murray: Welcome to the Granite State Gong Show]
You can’t dismiss that, but they did, and here we are, in the NH Court Systems three-ring circus, on the question of whether the State has ignored Constitutional restrictions and existing law in the course of conducting federal elections.
Oh, and what sort of games can be played to wear Dan down and get him to give up?
These are not new problems. The Granite State is well known on these pages as being less than diligent in its obligation to ensure chain of custody, ballot security, a list of other indiscretions, and fair hearings in court.
Giving out-of-state students more voting rights than actual Granite Staters is an entire issue in itself, consuming miles of column inches on these pages.
It’s a f*cking joke, whose punch line is the siren call narrative from “the people in charge” about how secure New Hampshire’s elections are. They say it all the time, like Liberals projecting, which means they know they are not, and this is deliberate or collusion to hide the truth. They are all a bunch of lazy bastards who don’t want to address the problem in any meaningful way, certainly not with teeth.
Dan, to his credit, has been at this for a while. He is something of a self-taught expert in election law. He knows more about the subject than most of the people charged with ensuring the elections are conducted in line with the law and the State Constitution.
The State just can’t be bothered, and to be honest, the High Court agreeing that Dan had any standing at all was a bit out of character. The lower court’s disregard for it, possibly at the off-the-record request of one or more individuals, aligns more closely with the character of New Hampshire’s justice system.
It is also likely that players tried to intimidate Justice Marconi into not supporting Dan’s position on Richard v Sununu, which the AG then spun to claim she was trying to manipulate the Governor.
This is all embarrassing at several levels, especially for Republican governors and Republican Majority Legislatures with the authority to intervene but can’t or won’t. There is also the foundational question and its consequences. If Dan is correct, and given the way the courts and the political class have behaved, he’s likely to be, the state would need to revisit how it uses, casts, and counts ballots.
TO provide relief if Dan’s rights are proven to have been violated (and yours with him). Every town could, at least potentially, have to go to hand-counting ballots, for example.
The state would rather sit on its hands, and Dan has sensed that. Last month, he filed a complaint with the US Department of Justice. Complaint Filed with US DOJ Alleging Violations of Federal Election Laws by NH Officials.
If any Administration was going to consider wading into the mess that is New Hampshire Elections, it’s this one.We hope they do, and soon.
Here is his latest in-state brief. RULE 7 APPEAL OF THE FINAL DECISION OF ROCKINGHAM COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
