Take a look at some of the more interesting parts of the 2014 Guare v. NH case that was meant to codify out-of-state, unqualified voter’s participation in New Hampshire elections. You can see how this case, in my opinion, was never meant to be won by “our side.” My comments are in parenthesis.
Supreme Court of New Hampshire.
Annemarie Guare & a. v. State of New Hampshire
No. 2014–558
Decided: May 15, 2015
The State Supreme Court has ruled (in its analysis of HB1264, which the governor then signed yesterday) that out-of-state college students do not have more rights than actual citizens of New Hampshire. They are not entitled to a special exclusion from the responsibilities actual residents accept including registering vehicles in the Granite State or obtaining a New Hampshire driver’s license. And asking these things of them is not a poll tax.
This is as it should be but New Hampshire Democrats have been stealing elections from Granite Staters for years and in spite of the court’s opinion they are ramping up to try and rob you of at least one more.
After decades of accepting non-citizens votes as equal to a qualified citizen’s vote, the New Hampshire State Supreme Court has acknowledged in its recent opinion that one must be domiciled in New Hampshire to vote here. This means that being domiciled in our state carries certain responsibilities – the same responsibilities as that of any other citizen.
Get ready for the “poll tax” debate! Proponents of non-resident voting will drag out a pathetic argument sure to stimulate the naive. Here is the argument:
Obtaining an NH driver’s license when declaring NH your voting domicile is the same as a poll tax.
OK, let’s take the poll tax debate head-on.
Ed Nail has been all over this, naturally but I just finished reading the decision so while you should read all of Ed’s remarks I want to try to use the court’s judgment to clarify what just happened when Governor Sununu signed HB1264 into law.
An excerpt from the State Supreme Court’s decision will help us along here.
To: New Hampshire State Supreme Court
From: Coalition of NH Taxpayers Chairman, Ed Naile
8 North Main St. Concord, NH 03301
Re: Court Review of NH Election Law Legislation
Date: May 29, 2018
M E M O R A N D U M OF L A W
Statement of Facts:
New Hampshire has a practice of allowing citizens of other states to vote in New Hampshire during our General Elections, which includes elections for Federal office. This practice has increased in volume since the adoption of same-day registration in 1996. Any person, from any state, who has attained the age of 18 can simply show proof identity to register to vote in New Hampshire, including a current, valid, out-of-state driver’s license. The registrant simply signs an affidavit as per RSA 654:12. It is known as a: QUALIFIED VOTER AFFIDAVIT.
The Attorney General’s Office, Elections Division, is tasked with enforcing election laws as per RSA 7:6 c. This office may prosecute – at its discretion.
There has been a decade’s old state of confusion regarding the terms “domicile” and “resident” which has been the source of several lawsuits regarding out-of-state college voters and transient campaign workers who choose to vote in New Hampshire instead of their legal residence in their home state.
VOLINSKY and PAPPAS
Volinsky and Pappas devote their memorandum to arguing that the Court should duck the questions transferred by the Governor. Because I already covered their argument in my discussion of the Attorney General’s memorandum, I will not repeat it here.
STATE SENATE
The State Senate’s attorney, Rick Lehmann, researched the history of the term domicile in Part I, Article 11. Statements made at the 1974 constitutional convention by the delegates indicate that “[t]he current situation, in which a person can have a domicile in New Hampshire without being a resident is precisely the opposite of the original intent of the amendment’s drafters.”
In my memorandum, I made a similar point:
DEMOCRAT STATE SENATORS WOODBURN, SOUCY, AND FELTES
As I discussed in Part I, the primary argument of these Democrat State Senators —like the ACLU and like the Democrat Executive Councilors— is that the Court should not return answers to the questions. Because I already addressed this argument in my discussion of the Attorney General’s memorandum in Part I, I will not repeat it here.
The Democrat State Senators argue that House Bill 1264 violates Part I, Article 11 because Part I, Article 11 requires the State to maintain two class of domiciliary: resident and nonresident. This argument is the same argument advanced by the ACLU and so can be answered in the same manner.
Not a comprehensive examination of all memoranda filed with Supreme Court regarding House Bill 1264. Just some notes I took while reading through them, cleaned up somewhat for public consumption.
SECRETARY OF STATE
The Secretary of State takes no express position on House Bill 1264. But he appears to agree with the position of the Governor —as I see it— that nonresident college students somehow have a right to vote in New Hampshire and remain nonresidents. I say this because of the Secretary of State’s characterization of the second question submitted by the Governor:
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
SUPREME COURT
CASE NO. 2018-0267
Request for an Opinion of the Justices (Amending Definition of Resident and Residency)
MEMORANDUM OF ED MOSCA
IN SUPPORT OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF HOUSE BILL 1264
I. INTRODUCTION – A COURT OF LAW OR A WOKE COURT?
In Guare v. State, 117 A.3d 731 (2015), this Court ruled that the act of declaring a voting domicile in New Hampshire did not establish residency in New Hampshire because the statutory definitions of the terms differed:
The Governor of the State of New Hampshire, through the Executive Council, has sent a letter to the NH State Supreme Court in an attempt to clarify the definition of RESIDENT vs. DOMICILE when it comes to voting.
It is a shame we are still falling for the resident/domicile scam that NH uses to let non-citizens vote in our Federal Elections.
The word RESIDENT is not even in Article 11 of the NH State Constitution.
See if you can please help me find it:
I know politicians often feel they must balance principals against results. Once elected (once) conservative candidates become more practical. They surrender the issues they ran for office on to the ability to get “things done” or to “save what they have won.” I the this entirely. It is a basic human instinct – except for liberals. Liberals, progressives, socialists, whatever you want to call them, go even more radical once surrounded by power. They try and eliminate all opposition, that is in their evil nature.
The best of all worlds for progressives is to get their intended victims to help them along. It is an easy task. Plenty of appeasers will side with progressives in an always unsuccessful attempt at satisfying progressive anger and deflecting attacks. This plan never works for long.
The old “loophole” argument is back at it again when it comes to voter fraud in NH. The “powers that be” who will not prosecute out-of-state voters have determined there is no law mandating a NH driver’s license to vote in NH. That is their current excuse.
This simpleton argument has no merit, but it does sound good – if you like out-of-state voters stealing a recent US Senate Seat election for Maggie Hassen.
Here is the specific language of RSA 654:1 regarding who can vote in NH.
Out-of-state college students who pay out-of-state tuition are not just encouraged but allowed to vote in New Hampshire. It’s a long-standing issue. But the University of NH has a solution. (90 seconds)
Taxpayers might be on the hook again as a local utility looks to divest itself of some property (with the legislatures help). Then there’s an election law bill that may make the definition of domicile worse (if you can imagine that). And we take a few shots at UNH because we are talking about domicile. … Read more
In part one of this interview Ed Naile updates us on a case at the state supreme court involving domicile as it applies to voting rights. We also learn the latest on a Pennsylvania Lawyer registered in PA and NH who voted in both state primaries in 2012 and in the NH general election. … Read more
David Bozell from ForAmerica joined us to talk about bad tax policy and how almost everyone in Washington is to blame; Ed Naile updates us on the complete lack of ballot integrity in NH and how the AG and SoS are not just to blame they work to keep it that way; Kimberly Morin shares … Read more
Nashua New Hampshire Democrat Cindy Rosenwald is back in the spotlight. If you recall, she’s the one who admitted that her party not only knew it had left an 800 million dollar hole in the budget, but they planned to cut spending to fix it. Well, now we find out that she knew there were out of state voters voting in New Hampshire, because at least one of them has been voting from her Nashua Address since at least 2007.
Ed Nail at NH Insider just reported on the voting history of a professional Democrat Campaign lackey by the name of Paolo Cozzi. Mr. Cozzi lived on Clement Street in Sommerville, Massachusetts (Update- He is now currently living in DC). But they had more than enough Democrats living in MA, so in 2007, 2008 and 2012, Paolo Cozzi hopped on the commuter rail (hey, that’s why Liberals want rail service to Nashua), or got in his Obama-mobile–(Cozzi is employed in the service of OFA)–and put his vote to better use by claiming to live at 101 Wellington Street in Nashua, New Hampshire, the home of Democrat House Rep. Cindy Rosenwald.
The State Constitution says that you must be domiciled in New Hampshire to vote here.
The legal definition of domicile is your residence. By law you can only have one of these.
But Judge Lewis allowed the ACLU’s “love the one you are with” definition of domicile to supersede the common law definition. Anyone can claim to live here to vote without having to so for any other purpose. Until that is resolved there is nothing ‘technically’ illegal about it; this ruling is, as I have said before, legalizing the theft of elections for the purpose of indefinite one-party rule.
It is, for all intents and purposes, the tyranny of factionalism we were long ago warned about. It is a sanctioned left wing mob complete with the potential for a perennial lynching at the ballot box.
Boston.com has an article today observing that pro-obama turnout in New Hampshire’s college towns is less than it was in 2008. There is very intentional mention of concerns (from folks like myself I assume) about out of state students being used to tip the election; but how no one could ever know how they’d vote, and about the promtion by Democrats of the idea that Republicans were tyring to keep them from voting which is why they should.
So much concern in one tiny little article, complete with deceptions, and a new narrative to plumb.
Well I just happen to have a very workable theory about why turnout in NH College towns was down–something I had not considered checking until now, thank you–and it ties directly to a well worn New Hampshire Democrat excuse about why they support out of state student voting in New Hampshire.
Judge Lewis made it legal for out of state residents to vote in New Hampshire. It’s not quite that simple but he essentially legalized out of state voter influence on your local election (vote fraud) which is not actually a new idea but may have been executed on a massive scale this week.
Now you’d have to be a bit immoral or unethical to take unfair advantage of such a legal loophole, yes? To find and encourage people to participate in such a scheme? Well what if a certain political party did just that? If they used a legal loophole, secured by a liberal Judge, in response to a suit brought by Liberal activist groups, then used their massive canvassing database to target polling places where they could tip elections in their favor? That would be crazy talk. Legally robbing other people of their voice with out of state voters?
So I suppose we’d need some proof to make that case? Well guess what. You can help us gather it.