In this weekend’s unscientific Grok Poll, we asked this question. Should NH require a Photo ID to Vote? The response to this question was overwhelming. We could even call it a consensus.
Articles tagged as
SB3
Poll: Should NH Require a Photo ID to Vote? [Vote Now, Poll Ends at Midnight]
This seems like a no-brainer of a poll question for this audience, but it seems like a good idea. SB3 was recently thrown out (for good and bad), while states nationwide are wrestling with ensuring election integrity. ID is an important part of the puzzle.
What NH Should do now that its Supreme Court has tossed the SB3 Voter Law
Having read our supreme court’s decision on SB3, a bill that I strenuously opposed from my radio show, I have to say that I agree with the decision. Since June 2, 1784, Part I, Article 11 of the New Hampshire Constitution has provided for the following with respect to the Right to Vote:
THE FIX WAS IN: Attorney General Tanked SB3 Case – Judge Says No Proof of Domicile Needed to Vote in New Hampshire
This: Here is the link to the decision, which is a joke. If you want to see a liberal-activist judge ply his trade, give it a read. But all I think you need to know in order to know why it is once again legal for someone to show up in New Hampshire at a … Read more
My ‘Chat’ With Former State Sen. Peter Burling (D) on Election Law
I was on the Keith Hanson show this morning to go “toe-to-toe” with Former Democratic State Senator Peter Burling over voter laws, claims of voter suppression, voter fraud and Senate Bill 3. Can you guess how that turned out? Well, you don’t have to, you can listen to it.
Common Sense Voting Rights
Once again, an activist Superior Court judge stopped legislation aimed at preventing non-citizens from voting in New Hampshire. It happens every time a new law is enacted. Perkins Coie assisted the NH Democrats in this latest attack on New Hampshire voters. The League of Women Voters is also guilty. The bottom line is this: If … Read more
Voating Rites
Let me see if I have this right: SB 3, which clarifies the process by which some people — mainly non-resident college students — can vote in New Hampshire, has been set aside (temporarily, at least) by a Superior Court judge because these students might have trouble reading the new affidavit specified by the law, which apparently is written at too high a reading level.
Too high a reading level. For college students.
Specifically, the new affidavit places an ‘unreasonable and discriminatory’ burden on those students because — in the judge’s words — it ‘reads like a statute’.
So a statute can’t be a valid statute… if it reads like one? What are the alternatives?
Isn’t that what it’s supposed to be? A deterrent? – Part 2
Earlier I pointed out that the high penalty for violating SB3 is $5000 which is being used as an argument against allowing the law to come into force (“The $5,000 fine is financially crushing to college students“). This was pointed out as part of the Democrat testimony against SB3 (reformatted, emphasis mine):
Recent UNH graduate Doug Marino, now working as a volunteer in the Congressional campaign of Democrat Chris Pappas, testified as to his experience in recruiting student voters on campus. “I believe it (SB3) will deter students from voting. College students as it is are extremely busy, particularly first-year students, who are in a new place or on their own for the first time,” he said. “Even those who may want to register to vote may be wary of doing so if they have to sign a document that could potentially carry legal penalties.”
Especially if they are lying?
SB3 Won’t “Suppress” Legal Votes If You Are a Legal Voter , Duh.
The No Borders folks are at it again. No, not the southern border, the New Hampshire border. All the way around. The Democrats erased it a few years ago as a GOTV strategy. This year the legislature passed SB3 to try and pencil the state border back in. Get back a sliver of that state sovereignty thingamajig. But the no borders crowd aren’t having it, and they’ll say anything to stop it.
Isn’t that what it’s supposed to be? A deterrent?
In an article on the Democrats using Lawfare to make sure ANYONE can vote here in NH (and probably feel that NH residents shouldn’t), this caught my eye:
The provisions of SB 3, however, require new voters to prove they either live in New Hampshire, or are domiciled in New Hampshire. Domicility is the concept used in New Hampshire law to describe out-of-state college students who attend school in New Hampshire, and are legally allowed to vote in Granite State elections. If those new voters lack the required documents, such as a utility bill or a letter from their college stating where they live for the school year, they will have 10 days after the election to provide the documents to avoid potential criminal penalties.
Meyer testified that the bill seemed designed to keep college students from voting, especially due to the potential fines of up to $5,000.
“The $5,000 fine is financially crushing to college students,” he said.
ISN’T THAT THE POINT! Make the consequence of a stupid decision really, really bad? Maybe keep them from the abject perp-walk of shame for sticking it to the Republicans (on a lark, even)?