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
Decided: May 15, 2015
Shaheen & Gordon, P.A., of Concord (William E. Christie and Benjamin T. Siracusa Hillman on the brief, and Mr. Christie orally), American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire, of Concord (Gilles R. Bissonnette on the brief), and Sisti Law Offices, of Portsmouth (Alan J. Cronheim on the brief), for the petitioners. Joseph A. Foster, attorney general (Anne M. Edwards, associate attorney general, and Stephen G. LaBonte, assistant attorney general, on the brief, and Mr. LaBonte orally), for the State.
The State appeals an order of the Superior Court (Tucker, J.) denying the State’s summary judgment motion and granting that of the petitioners, Annemarie E. Guare, Cody Blesedell, Garret Healey, Joan Ashwell, and the League of Women Voters, on their petition for declaratory and injunctive relief. When this case was decided by the trial court, petitioners Guare, Blesedell, and Healey were students enrolled at the University of New Hampshire, and petitioner Ashwell was a volunteer with the New Hampshire League of Women Voters.”
(The first thing you notice is the lead law firm. What is the law firm of the husband of a sitting US Senator doing participating in a case where that Senator benefits by non-citizen voters?)
(The petitioners, Guare, Blesedell, and Healy were out-of-state tuition paying students unable to give a New Hampshire address as a lawful permanent address. They held out-of-state license to drive.)
“On appeal, the State argues that the trial court erred by applying strict scrutiny to the subject language. The State contends that because the language is “consistent with New Hampshire law[ ] and is both reasonable and nondiscriminatory,” it imposes no burden upon a citizen’s fundamental right to vote. The State further contends that “[a]ny restrictions that the subject language places on [the] right to vote” are justified by the State’s interest in complying with certain provisions of the federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA), see 52 U.S.C.A. § 21083 (Supp.2014). Because the State has not briefed on appeal the other two interests it asserted in the trial court to justify the challenged language, we consider its arguments about those interests waived. See Aubert v. Aubert, 129 N.H. 422, 428 (1987) (“Arguments not briefed are waived on appeal.”).”
(Our AG’s Office didn’t use the State Constitution, the US Constitution, an accepted law dictionary, or argue that the State has a compelling interest in seeing that only qualified applicants can register to vote. They argued HAVA?)
(The NH AG’s Office lawyers didn’t brief arguments and lost them?)
“For the purposes of this appeal, the State has agreed that the 2012 law that added the challenged language to the voter registration form, Laws 2012, 285:2, does not alter the statutory definitions of “domicile” and “residence.” The State has also acknowledged that the statutory definition of “domicile” and the statutory definition of “residence” differ. Further, the State has agreed that, to vote in New Hampshire, a citizen need only have a New Hampshire “domicile,” and need not be a New Hampshire “resident.”
(The definitions of domicile and resident accepted by the NH AG’s Office attorneys for this case are the opposite of their true legal meaning. So, a normal person would ask: “How do you suppose you can win a case about domicile if you give up the true definition of the word “domicile” found in Part 1 Article 11 of the NH Constitution which demands a domicile to vote here? Did these attorneys plan on not winning?)
“We agree with the petitioners that the challenged language inaccurately states New Hampshire law. The challenged language informs a potential voter that, upon declaring New Hampshire as her domicile, she is “subject to the laws of the state of New Hampshire which apply to all residents, including laws requiring a driver to register a motor vehicle and apply for a New Hampshire [ ] driver’s license within 60 days of becoming a resident.” Laws 2012, 285:2. This is inaccurate. A person who has only a New Hampshire domicile, but who does not meet the statutory definition of “resident,” is not “subject to the laws of the state of New Hampshire which apply to all residents.”
(This asinine statement by the NH State Supreme Court is by definition – voter fraud. All domiciled inhabitants of NH must follow all the laws of our state. Any person declaring a NH domicile can only have one. The court knows this. No court can invent special double domiciles for voting. Once you adopt NH as your primary residence (domicile) you are in fact a resident of New Hampshire.)
Says the Court:
“We believe that the flexible standard that we adopted in Akins includes a test that is similar to intermediate scrutiny. Under that test, the State must “articulate specific, rather than abstract state interests, and explain why the particular restriction imposed is actually necessary, meaning it actually addresses, the interest set forth.” Ohio State Conference of N.A.A.C.P., 768 F.3d at 545; cf. Ass’n of People with Disabilities v. Herrera, 690 F.Supp.2d 1183, 1220 (D.N.M.2010) (to respond to a challenge under the First Amendment of the Federal Constitution to voter registration law, State must do more than assert that its regulatory interests are important), reconsideration granted on other grounds, 2010 WL 3834049 (D.N.M. July 28, 2010); Cmty. Res. for Justice, 154 N.H. at 762 (to meet burden under intermediate scrutiny, State “may not rely upon justifications that are hypothesized or invented post hoc in response to litigation, nor upon overbroad generalizations” (quotations omitted)).”
Looks like the NH AG’s Office didn’t bring a case in 2012 (Rivers) or 2014 (Guare) to defend NH citizens from out-of-state voters. No law dictionary was offered as a source to end the “confusion” regarding resident or domicile. They didn’t even make a case that NH has a compelling interest in protecting qualified inhabitants from having their votes watered down by out-of-state unqualified voters. The Federal Court in the Newburger case in 1972 mentioned the same thing.
This new legislation does not correct a misunderstanding regarding two legal terms. There never was one. This piece of legislation was brought to a sensible, nonpartisan NH State Supreme Court. And Federal case brought by out-of-state voters would have been slapped down.