by Ed Naile

Here is the least laughable part of the NH ACLU “suit” against NH voters.

I have copied a paragraph of it here without citation and page break:

“HB 1264 is unconstitutional under at least three different theories. First, HB 1264 violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution under the, Anderson/Burdick, framework in that it imposes a severe burden on the right to vote, and therefore must survive strict scrutiny. Because HB 1264 does not advance a compelling state interest, and because it is not narrowly tailored to advance such an interest, it is unconstitutional. Even if intermediate scrutiny applies, the burden HB1264 imposes on the right to vote outweighs the state’s interests.”

HB 1264 removes a part of existing law: HB 1264 amends RSA 21:6 and :6-a by striking the words “for the indefinite future” from the definition of residency.

This is an argument about nothing.

When an out-of-state student or campaign worker votes in NH they are declaring NH their legal domicile. No one, no matter how special their parents tell them they are, or how elite their college is, has the right to have two legal domiciles. The NH State Supreme Court just put this to rest with their 2018 Opinion of the Justices Regarding Residency and Residence:

In 1972 the Dartmouth College case, Newburger v. Peterson, a federal court case, held that NH could not prevent out-of-state students from voting here simply because they would leave after graduation. There was no “compelling reason” to allow students who were in every meaningful sense, members of the community.

The Court then also said:

“We conclude that the indefinite intention test has not been deliberately examined or foreclosed from examination. We therefore consider whether it is necessary to promote a compelling state interest. The justification, as concisely put by defendants, is that the state has a compelling interest in the promotion of a more intelligent vote, especially in small communities, by insuring that voters have a commitment to the community and a stake in the outcome of local elections. Such a vote and such a long-term commitment are belied, defendants argue, by a definite future intent to leave at a fixed time. We note that defendants do not rely on any state interest in preventing election frauds nor on any desire to prevent students from overwhelming a college community.”

The Federal Court recognized that NH has a compelling interest in making sure voters have a commitment to their community and that students would not overwhelm local voters – but would not let NH stop them from voting because of upcoming graduation. House Bill 1264 does not do that.
If the NH ACLU can get a friendly judge or two to sign on to letting bona fide citizens of a state other than NH vote in Federal Elections, it will be a tough hill to climb.

“52 USC 10307: Prohibited Acts” does not allow giving a false domicile to election officials. You can’t have two, so one is false.

Once again, the NH ACLU has duped students into being plaintiffs in a stupid case.

The Anderson v. Celebrezze and Burdick v. Takushi, cases cited by the NH ACLU called “Anderson/Burdick” here are about severe voting restrictions.

Severe voting restrictions are not at issue in New Hampshire. All our Legislature and Governor are asking is that if you declare NH your domicile to vote – you are held to the same standard as any qualified voter who lives in NH and has a lawful domicile.

No one is being forced to get a NH driver’s license or register a car here. You don’t have to do either. But you can’t keep an out of state license. Your own state will tell you that. Or I can notify them if NH won’t. Ask vote thief Carl Robert Gibson how that works. His Ct. registered car got towed by Concord Police.

Most college students are already registered to vote in their home state. I know. I track them. They get registered to vote by Motor Voter back home – not in NH.

Get it?

Maybe it’s time to look up the past NH ACLU litigants and see what they are up to now?