N.H. Supreme Court restores registration forms, process of 2017 ‘proof-of-domicile’ law SB 3

WMUR ^ | Oct. 26, 2018 | John DiStaso

[BobL]

CONCORD, N.H. —

The New Hampshire Supreme Court, in a unanimous ruling late Friday, kept in place through the Nov. 6 election the voter registration forms used by local officials in the past several elections following the enactment of a controversial law tightening voter identification requirements.

A lower court on Monday blocked the state from using the forms required by the 2017 law known as Senate Bill 3, ruling that the law – and the forms – were confusing and imposed “unreasonable and discriminatory” burdens on voters. The law, passed by Republican lawmakers and signed by Gov. Chris Sununu, requires voters to show proof of domicile in New Hampshire, or pledge to provide documentation to local officials within 10 to 30 days after an election. Advertisement Related Content

State attorneys ask top court to halt judge's order blocking use of new voter registration forms

But the state’s highest court, responding to an emergency motion filed by the attorney general’s office on Wednesday, ruled that, with less than two weeks to go until Nov. 6, the lower court order would create confusion among local election officials in the lead-up to, and on, Election Day.

[BobL]

Nice to see a VICTORY after having to deal with this Fake Bomber. For those who don't know, every election day busloads of people from universities in the Boston area arrive in New Hampshire to vote in their election. Why? Because they live in a deep blue state and their votes down there mean nothing. But New Hampshire is a bright-purple state with elections there often being decided by 1000 votes or less, including US President and Senators. A vote in New Hampshire can have huge national impacts, while a vote in MA is virtually useless.

The old law in New Hampshire basically encouraged this illegal cross-border voting, but the new law makes it much tougher.

But, as usual, some leftist local judge decided two weeks before election day to rule the law unconstitutional. These last-minute 'rulings' by leftist judges are a standard tactic, having seen it in Texas regarding Voter ID. The law is passed 18 months before the first election it applies to. A lawsuit is filed immediately thereafter. And then things stall until JUST BEFORE the voting starts, when a typical leftist judges throws out the law, thinking that there won't be time to appeal. The problem for the leftist judges is that by throwing out the law so late, emergency appeals can be filed, and the good guys are given an excellent defense, as seen here (and in Texas) where the upper courts don't have to rule on the constitutionality of the law, but rather the disruption and confusion created by the lower courts in waiting so long to throw out the law...so the law stands!

[SpeedyInTexas]

A win in the courts. Who would of thunk it...

[BobL]

“A win in the courts. Who would of thunk it...”

I hear you, but GET USED TO IT, thanks to President Trump!

[Gay State Conservative]

I have a confession to make....knowing that my vote would mean absolutely *nothing* here in the Gay State I seriously considered heading up Route 3 on 11/6/16 and presenting myself as a newly arrived resident of Nashua.Of course I would have voted straight Republican unlike most of the college punks,schizophrenics and drunks who do that every even year.

But I figured "with my luck I'll be the *one* person who's actually prosecuted and I wouldn't do well in prison"...so I didn't.

[Gay State Conservative]

It goes without saying that Rat Party Headquarters will take this to the Federal courts....on Monday.

[Enterprise]

Typical Democrat obstruction tactic, just before an election. It didn’t work this time.

[wizwor]

“A win in the courts. Who would of thunk it...”

I hear you, but GET USED TO IT, thanks to President Trump!

Well, these are New Hampshire courts, so the president did not have any role in the law or the court case. It's just a common sense decision to block an attempt to reverse the intent of a law which prevents 'tourist voters' from interfering with our elections. The 'victims' of this ruling are students who do not live in New Hampshire except for the part of the year they are in school, Massholes who own vacation property in New Hampshire and live in the state a few weeks a year, and the frauds who same day register with an 'intent to live in New Hampshire'. Great ruling for the people who actually live in New Hampshire.

[NativeSon]

Nothing wrong with fighting dirty but don't break the law- that's a big difference between the left & the Right.

I wouldn't do it because it's wrong, not out of fear of getting caught. I never fear the laws I follow, I uphold them.

Glad you did the right (Right) thing.

[wizwor]

I have a confession to make....knowing that my vote would mean absolutely *nothing* here in the Gay State I seriously considered heading up Route 3 on 11/6/16 and presenting myself as a newly arrived resident of Nashua.

In New Hampshire, most of the bills are paid with real estate taxes. Right of Left, nonresidents have no business participating. Democrats redefined residence for purposes of voting. This law simply says that to vote, you have to be a resident for all usual purposes -- pay taxes in New Hampshire, register your car in New Hampshire. It's ironic that Massachusetts will actually help New Hampshire enforce this law as they are tough on people who register their cars in New Hampshire, but reside in Massachusetts.

[BobL]

Yep, your instincts are probably correct. The Deep State, of course, will want to show that only CONSERVATIVES are involved in voter fraud.

The key is to PASS LAWS and then make sure that we have judges who respect those laws, which means, virtually every time, REPUBLICANS, even if they are RINOs, they are still better, almost always MUCH BETTER, than the Democrats who would take their places.

So, for those who have an ‘issue’ with Trump-hating RINOs - PLEASE, hold your nose, vote for the RINO, and then work the issue in the Primaries, where we should be settling our differences. Making a ‘statement’ in the general election only plays RIGHT INTO THE HANDS of the Left, as it enables their people, the people who HATE AMERICA, to win.

[Revel]

Cheating is critical to the democrats in this elections. All of there eggs are in that basket. By using all of their various cheating tools on every level then I expect the cheat votes to total in the hundreds of thousands.

[SpeedyInTexas]

“presenting myself as a newly arrived resident of Nashua”

I posted an article a few months back about this. A study was done of those who “newly arrived” and voted.

The state looked at whether those people obtained a drivers license or registered a car in the state within a year or so after the election. The vast majority never registered a vehicle or obtained a drivers license. We know what that means: they were there only to vote.

[SpeedyInTexas]

Here is the article: https://www.wmur.com/article/new-voting-statistics-show-6540-people-registered-to-vote-in-nh-last-year-using-out-of-state-drivers-licenses-as-ids/12196129

5300 out of 6500 never got a NH drivers license or registered a vehicle. 5300 were only there to vote. That cost Kelly Ayotte her senate seat (lost by 1000 votes).

[Beagle8U]

It doesn’t read like a victory to me, unless you are for out-of-state cheaters voting. What am I missing?

[wizwor]

What am I missing?

The new law requires that people who claim residence to vote exhibit other characteristics of residents -- paying taxes, registering a car, etc. This law has been in effect for a year and applied to recent elections. A week ago, Democrats challenged the law hoping to restore voting rights to nonresidents. The court ruled that it was too late to stay the law for this election. Nonresidents will need to work harder to vote in New Hampshire for the midterms.

[Beagle8U]

I guess I read it wrong.