{"id":8128,"date":"2018-07-20T15:17:35","date_gmt":"2018-07-20T20:17:35","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.cnht.org\/news\/?p=8128"},"modified":"2018-07-20T15:19:57","modified_gmt":"2018-07-20T20:19:57","slug":"new-hampshire-secretary-of-state-confused-about-voter-fraud-laws-words-election-integrity","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.cnht.org\/news\/2018\/07\/20\/new-hampshire-secretary-of-state-confused-about-voter-fraud-laws-words-election-integrity\/","title":{"rendered":"New Hampshire Secretary of State Confused About Voter Fraud, Laws, Words, Election Integrity"},"content":{"rendered":"

by Ed Naile<\/em><\/p>\n

The lunacy involving NH permitting illegal, out-of-state voting which has continued because there seems to be a complete misunderstanding of how laws work, and what words mean. I can\u2019t even begin to imagine how people in charge of New Hampshire\u2019s election laws read a court case. There is solid proof they only accept parts of decisions.<\/p>\n

Here is an article former newspaper reporter Drew Cline wrote which includes some interesting observations of our election laws \u2013 by Secretary of State William Gardner. He claims our election laws permit illegal voting \u2013 which is hard to comprehend. <\/p>\n

September 24. 2014
\nDrew Cline: Bill Gardner knows that voter fraud happens in New Hampshire.<\/strong>
\nby Drew Cline<\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cWe have drive-by voting,\u201d New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner said in an interview on Wednesday.
\nA revered Democrat, Gardner is a mild-mannered throwback to the days when politics was a little less nasty and a little less partisan. His passion, in addition to preserving New Hampshire\u2019s first-in-the-nation presidential primary status, is preserving the integrity of its elections. For this reason, the genial Gardner will rant for an hour about the state\u2019s voting laws, which he says allow blatant and ongoing voter fraud.<\/p>\n

He has witnessed fraud with his own eyes, Gardner says. He tells anyone who will listen that the problem is real and pervasive. But few are listening. <\/p>\n

Gardner identifies two central reasons why New Hampshire is a haven for voter fraud. One is the way the state defines \u201cdomicile\u201d for voting purposes.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe have all kinds of different durational requirements for residency,\u201d he said. \u201cYou have to be here five years. You have to be here six months, depending on whether it\u2019s a fishing license, welfare. The governor has to live here seven years. When Eisenhower came here in the 1950s, he couldn\u2019t fish. They had to go to Maine.\u201d<\/p>\n

But there is no residency requirement for voting. Many states \u2014 including Maine and Vermont \u2014 require that voters be residents. New Hampshire does not. A U.S. Supreme Court case in 1972 ruled part of the state\u2019s residency requirement unconstitutional, so the state requires merely that a voter be \u201cdomiciled\u201d in New Hampshire. Domicile is defined for voting purposes as \u201cthat one place where a person, more than any other place, has established a physical presence and manifests an intent to maintain a single continuous presence for domestic, social and civil purposes relevant to participating in democratic self-government.\u201d<\/p>\n

That is, domicile hinges on the voter\u2019s physical presence in New Hampshire and \u201cstate of mind,\u201d as Gardner says. The latter is unproveable in court, which is why the state Attorney General\u2019s office will not prosecute most fraud cases. That sets the foundation for fraud.<\/p>\n

Building upon that foundation, Gardner says, is Election Day voter registration, which New Hampshire adopted to comply with the federal \u201cmotor voter law\u201d of 1993. Under the law, people can show up at a polling place on Election Day, register to vote under our loose domicile definition, then leave the state the next day.
\nIn 2012, Gardner filed an affidavit in a case challenging the state\u2019s voter registration form. In it, he told how he witnessed fraud personally in 2008 when he went to vote.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe people that ran the polling place called me over, and said they had three people who didn\u2019t know whether they could vote, and they wanted me to answer the questions,\u201d he explained in our interview. \u201cSo I go over, there were two young men and a young woman, and they were AmeriCorps (volunteers).<\/p>\n

\u201cI said, \u2018Where is your home?\u2019 The woman said, \u2018Washington State.\u2019 I said, \u201cWhy didn\u2019t you vote in Washington State?\u2019 She said she missed the deadline, but she really wanted to vote. She said she was going back to Washington state the first of December. I said, well that should answer it for yourself as to whether this is now your home.<\/p>\n

\u201cBut then one of the guys said, wait, you don\u2019t know for sure, you might fall in love with a guy tonight. You don\u2019t know for sure.\u201d The woman registered but wound up not voting. The two men did.
\nGardner said he is powerless to stop such drive-by voting unless legislators fix the law. Every legislative session, he hopes they will.
\n—<\/p>\n

Andrew Cline is editorial page editor (2014) of the New Hampshire Union Leader. His column runs on Thursdays. His Twitter handle is @drewhampshire <\/em><\/p>\n

Let\u2019s get started:<\/p>\n

Gardner admits we have drive-by voting \u2013 that is certainly true. He even admits we are a \u201chaven\u201d for voter fraud \u2013 that is more true after each election.<\/p>\n

From the Article:
\n\u201cGardner identifies two central reasons why New Hampshire is a haven for voter fraud. One is the way the state defines \u201cdomicile\u201d for voting purposes.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

First of all, our constitutions doesn\u2019t have definition chapter.<\/p>\n

NH\u2019s State Constitution Part 1 Article 11 says, in the first two sentences:<\/p>\n

\u201cAll elections are to be free, and every inhabitant of the state of 18 years of age and upwards shall have an equal right to vote in any election. Every person shall be considered an inhabitant for the purposes of voting in the town, ward, or unincorporated place where he has his domicile.\u201d<\/p>\n

The phrase, \u201cwhere he has his domicile\u201d is important because domicile is the proper legal term for your permanent residence. The word resident is not in our State Constitution regarding voting. Only the word inhabitant is used for a person with a permanent resident. There is no logical, legal way to include a word not in Article 11.<\/p>\n

It is simple, as intended by the framers. Every inhabitant is a person with a domicile. But Gardner goes the \u201cconfusing resident argument\u201d route. He seems unwilling to admit domicile is the qualification.<\/p>\n

Next, we visit the \u201c1972 case\u201d Newburger v. Peterson which is a durational residency case regarding a Dartmouth student who was denied the right to vote because he intended to leave in the future. The case was not a domicile case. The Federal Court did not question Mr. Newburger\u2019s domicile (neither did NH) in its decision. It simply said NH could not stop a qualified voter from registering and voting simply because he intended to leave at some point \u2013 abandon his domicile.<\/p>\n

Gardner does not mention that in the final paragraphs of that same case the court said it could no longer prevent the student from voting here simply because he intended to leave \u2013 than they could force him to vote in a jurisdiction he left long ago and which may no longer recognize him as a citizen. I would argue that if you have an out-of-state license, that state recognizes you.<\/p>\n

It should be known that abandoning a previous permanent residence is part of acquiring a legal domicile. That is why the court mentioned it. It is also why people who don\u2019t mind out of state voters want to use the word residence for voting in NH not the word domicile.<\/p>\n

Then William Gardner goes on to the half-truth argument about \u201cintent\u201d of the voter. He claims intent is impossible to prove.<\/p>\n

But the law in question says one must \u201cmanifest an intent\u201d to maintain a single continuous presence. That is not simply an intent – it must be manifest \u2013 another legal term, as the legislature intended.
\n\u201cDomicile is defined for voting purposes as \u201cthat one place where a person, more than any other place, has established a physical presence and manifests an intent to maintain a single continuous presence for domestic, social and civil purposes relevant to participating in democratic self-government.\u201d<\/p>\n

William Gardner should know about \u201cmanifesting an intent.\u201d Our State Supreme Court has visited the issue in the cases below. The first, Hassan v. NH, involved our Secretary of State and manifesting an intent.<\/p>\n

Abdul Karim Hassan v. NH<\/p>\n

Then there are:
\nKurowski v. Town of Chester
\nTrefethen v. Derry<\/p>\n

The article also says a statement made by Mr. Gardner is – that our laws allow illegal voting. I hope he does not think that because any law that allows criminal, or unconstitutional voting is repugnant to a free society.
\nThere is no problem with prosecuting voter fraud. Each case has a paper trail.<\/p>\n

Our recent NH Supreme Court, OPINION OF THE JUDGES, opens the door to eliminating voter fraud in our state. We should jump at the chance.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

by Ed Naile The lunacy involving NH permitting illegal, out-of-state voting which has continued because there seems to be a complete misunderstanding of how laws work, and what words mean. I can\u2019t even begin to imagine how people in charge of New Hampshire\u2019s election laws read a court case. There is solid proof they only […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[3,29],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8128","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-articles-nh","category-vote-fraud"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cnht.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8128","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cnht.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cnht.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cnht.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cnht.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8128"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.cnht.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8128\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8131,"href":"https:\/\/www.cnht.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8128\/revisions\/8131"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cnht.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8128"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cnht.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8128"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cnht.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8128"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}