Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 05/29/2026 3:15:08 PM PDT by CFW
(The Center Square) — A federal judge has overturned a New Hampshire law that required unregistered voters to provide proof of citizenship to cast ballots in state elections.
The ruling late Thursday by U.S. District Court judge Samantha Elliott sided with the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups who sued to block the law, saying the requirement for new voters to provide a birth certificate or valid U.S. passport to cast a ballot on election day was unconstitutional.
“New Hampshire’s interest in election integrity cannot justify the burden on New Hampshire voters based on the evidence in this case," Elliot wrote in the 98-page ruling.
Elliot said the state Attorney General's office, which defended the law during a recent trial, didn't provide "conclusive proof" that non-citizens were regularly voting in New Hampshire elections. She pointed to testimony during the trial that only one person in 26 years has been charged with voter fraud, while a few people with permanent resident cards were allowed to vote due to confusion by local clerks.
"Such miniscule numbers strongly undercut any legitimate concern about election integrity vis-à-vis noncitizen voting and, consequently, the state’s interest in addressing it,” Elliott wrote.
(Excerpt) Read more at thecentersquare.com ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
Tell me you’re a democommie without telling me you’re a democommie.
Well, that sounds pretty screwed up!
One person charged with voter fraud in 26 years means many others got away with it and were deliberately NOT charged.
emergency appeal, now.
Tranny?
Yes, or a homely woman.
She can’t even comb het hair, much less know legalities.
I hope this can be appealed.
“...didn’t provide “conclusive proof” that non-citizens were regularly voting...”. Even if it occurred once, there needs to be a means to identify who is casting that vote. What does regularly mean to this “judge”?
I’m being deliberately sexist.
It’s always women.
Something needs to happen to these rectal robed reprobates besides just a bunch of talk by politicians and podcasters bitching on the Internet. No, I am not advocating CW II. Not by a long shot. But the longer that situations like this remain unaddressed, the more likely the dreadful specter becomes.
You sure that ain’t a man?
I suspect the Senate *may* pass save act at the last minute knowing a judge will rule it’s not legal. Then there won’t be time to implement it or fight it in court.
First off how can you vote at all if you are not registered. Next this need to be appealed directly to the USSC in order to overrule this court in time for the election.
Or, at long last, they need to be ignored.
I’m glad she struck it down. Now it will work its way through the courts where the SCOTUS will declare the law constitutional by a 6-3 majority. After that most states will enact a similar law.
unregistered voters
Those words jumped right off the screen to me. That’s nuts!
New Hampshire gets a lot of crossovers from massholes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.