by Ed Naile
Voter fraud is “in the news” today in the “Manchester Paper”.
Once again a “reporter” has drafted an article (actually two) about voter fraud in NH that whips a mighty spin on the facts as she understands them. And not surprisingly, the two stars of the fanciful articles are none other than our favorite denizen of the AG’s office, Orville “Bud” Fitch, an ever omnipresent (or is that omnipotent) Secretary of State Bill Gardner.
And to reassure the public that nothing untoward has happened in this last election, they go on and on about how they never find anything, even though they investigate hundreds of cases. (Bill Gardner is even seen in a photo reviewing a stack of very important looking paper so it must be true.)
Acworth is mentioned as a town where suspicious same-day domicile affidavits are raising the state’s eyebrow. But happily in the end it was all a simple misunderstanding (as usual). The always observant election officials were just a tad overzealous in having the forms filled out. No voter fraud there. Whew, close call! (Hint: check Windsor some time!)
In any case, as I read the Manchester Paper’s investigative journalism sleep-walk towards the preordained conclusion I am impressed with how much ink is spent on the “same-day registration process” such as affidavits offering the “opportunity” for voter fraud.
How would anyone know if this were true? Most towns have not responded completely, if at all, to public requests for information made from election day until now. Letters sent out to individuals who registered same-day are only now just coming back to our voter fraud activists across the state.
And to further gum up the works in favor of not finding voter fraud, we have these simple problems:
1. “Challengers”, (see RSA 659:27 and 666:4) real NH residents and voters who wanted to ask questions of same-day registering voters have been suppressed by election officials and the AG’s office in 2002 and 2004. This year, the AG’s office made it clear in pre-election opinions that challengers were only allowed to ask questions of same-day registrants if they have specific knowledge of that person not being a NH citizen. This is clearly not the intention of statutes and case law regarding challengers. Several Superior Court Justices were made available election day in case challengers were too intimidating to voters using out-of-state identification to vote.
2. The AG’s office came up with a new “opinion” that Domicile Affidavits could now be notarized off-site and not at the election place thereby further negating a challengers ability to determine NH residence.
3. The Domicile Affidavits are now being represented by the AG’s office as being exempt from the Right to Know Law, RSA 91-A. Go to the statute and see if the legislature made Domicile Affidavits exempt from public scrutiny. This claim by Bud Fitch further erodes the public’s ability to expose voter fraud on its own.
4. Foot dragging by some town officials long past a reasonable time to produce documents to the public. One town can and the next cannot. It makes no sense.
5. The refusal of the AG’s office to read the law in favor of pure elections. Case in point: the definition of Domicile as opposed to Residence. It is not that complicated when you look at it in terms of voting and the facts in front of your face. Domicile is where you live legally, according to the law. You can have ten residences but only one domicile. Just as Mrs. Heinz/Kerry has residences in many exclusive neighborhoods and islands around the world and she is the wife of a US Senator from Mass., she has a Pennsylvania “Domicile” so she doesn’t pay Mass. income tax. Domicile is a matter of facts, evidence, intent, and reality, as opposed to Bud Fitch’s definition and Bill Gardner’s weak explanations of being in your mind.
Let’s look at “domicile” the way voter fraud becomes an issue in NH.
Long after the 2002 elections there was a riot or two at The University of New Hampshire, thousands of people took part. Over 50 students and other young people were arrested. CNHT purchased copies of the arrest records and compared them with the same-day registrations in Durham. Over a dozen rioters names popped up on the checklist and those names were of people who used out-of-state and out-of-town drivers licenses for identification when arrested in 2003. Now, if you come to NH to go to school in August from another state, register to vote in November without getting a license as required by state law, then swear out an affidavit that you are a resident to vote, then get arrested and use that former state’s license as identification three months later, you are not a resident, have paid no taxes or fees to the state, and have a domicile, license, and ties to a community elsewhere, all this of your own choosing and by your own actions. You stole my vote! So if the 50 students or so who were arrested are a sample of the thousands who were rioting or the student body as a whole, it would be apparent to most people we have a problem. Question, do you see that mentioned in the Manchester Paper’s article? CNHT went to Bill Gardner’s office with the rioting Durham non-resident voter names accompanied by four state Representatives, one of whom was former State Rep. Bill Scott who lost his seat this time around, in all likelihood, to the huge same-day voter turnout. How quickly they investigated the several names from Nashua of homeless people in the Manchester Paper’s story. Why not the thousands of student voters who use out-of-state ID?
Stay tuned, we are just getting started. The fact that the Democrats went so far over the top this election year may prove helpful in our serious voter fraud investigation. We have other arguments, STATE STATUTES, and some interesting case law to prove domicile if the AG and Secretary of State cannot.
UPDATE 2008: After Governor Lynch was elected in 2004, some laws were quietly passed which prevent CNHT or anyone else from seeing important information on the voter registration card that helps pinpoint fraud. With our new “HB 391 Non-Resident Voter Protection Act” real NH voters can no longer see the details on a voter registration form such as the last place of residence or even the signature of the person voting.