Democrats Upset that You have to Live in New Hampshire to Vote in New Hampshire

An 'extremely controversial' bill was signed into law recently in New Hampshire.  SB 3 was the New Hampshire "domicile bill" as the Union Leader put it in an Editorial entitled Voting in NH: You actually have to live here:

If you live in New Hampshire, you can vote in New Hampshire. 

If you don’t live in New Hampshire, you can’t vote in New Hampshire.

This should not be controversial, but ambiguity in the law led to confusion over what it means to be domiciled in the Granite State. . . . 

Democrats are oddly passionate about protecting access to the polls for people who don’t really live here. Our elections should be reserved for New Hampshire voters.

The Democrats main argument was that SB 3 disenfranchises college students.  As the Union Leader pointed out earlier:

Democrats are riling up college students with the specious argument that they wouldn’t be welcome in New Hampshire, hoping to spark protests. Given the stunning political ignorance on campuses these days, it’s a safe bet. Yet nothing in SB 3 would prevent a college student from declaring New Hampshire residency and casting a ballot. Freshmen might not arrive in time for the September primary, but could certainly register for the November general election. In fact, attending college is one of the criteria that could be used to establish residency.

A common example of the person who votes in New Hampshire with no intention of being domiciled in New Hampshire is the campaign worker.  The most famous example of this is Alana Biden, Joe Biden’s niece, who was working on his campaign in 2012:

Election Day is always big in New Hampshire, and in the months leading up the general election last year, Alana Biden the vice president’s niece, worked on the campaign of President Barack Obama in the Granite State.

Biden voted on Election Day by swearing in an affidavit that her domicile was 145 Steinmetz Drive in Manchester. After the election, she left the state and moved to New York, according to her LinkedIn profile.

State Sen. Martha Fuller Clark, D-District 21, has eight people registered to vote under her single-family address in Portsmouth. Several of them came to New Hampshire to work on campaigns for various periods of time and voted in elections before moving on.

Thanks to Secretary of State Bill Gardner's (Democrat) leadership and Governor Chris Sununu (Republican) signing the bill, New Hampshire voters will actually have to live in the state.  

New Hampshire Attempts Minimal Election Integrity Protection; Democrats Predictably Overreact

In the midst of the New Hampshire Secretary of State's verification of voters who registered at the polls on Election Day in the fall finding 458 likely fraudulent voters (and probably more), the New Hampshire legislature is attempting to enact minimal common sense verification procedures for those who register to vote close to the election:

Earlier this year, the state Senate passed Senate Bill 3, an innocuous measure aimed at ensuring that a new voter has taken the steps necessary to make New Hampshire “the one place, more than any other, from which he or she engages in the domestic, social, and civil activities of participating in democratic self-government.” . . . To accomplish this, SB 3 tightens the state’s voter eligibility requirements. Under the proposal, someone registering to vote within 30 days of an election must “identify and provide evidence of a verifiable action” taken to maintain a domicile in the state. 

Just what are those “verifiable actions?” The bill establishes a wide-ranging list, including renting or purchasing a home in the state, obtaining a driver’s license, enrolling a child in a public school, attending a college or university, or obtaining a state-issued hunting or fishing license. Residence at a homeless shelter would also be sufficient.
Eager to ensure that the new law would in no way hinder the lawful casting of ballots, lawmakers make clear in the legislation that nearly any document – ranging from a lease, deed or utility bill, to a government form verifying the voter’s claimed address – would be accepted as documentation. . . .

SB 3 goes further still, allowing (as under current law) for same-day voter registration even if applicants do not have the required proof on hand. Applicants must sign an acknowledgment asserting their residency under penalty of voter fraud, and agree to provide the required proof to city officials within 10 days. That deadline is extended to 30 days in towns where clerks’ offices are open only part time. 

So, who will be removed from New Hampshire’s voter rolls? Only those who cannot, or will not, provide even a shred of evidence to support their claim of residency.

New Hampshire Democrats are saying those who support SB 3 are trying to suppress voters, attack "the legitimacy of our elections," and impose a literacy test, completely (and unfortunately predictably) resisting any effort to protect the integrity of elections and election results.  The Democrats' overreaction is particularly ridiculous in this case, as enacting this law would only bring New Hampshire in conformity with nearly every other state, which require some proof of residency in the state prior to registering to vote.

ICYMI, 458+ Likely Fraudulent Votes in New Hampshire 2016 Election

The Democrat New Hampshire Secretary of State is verifying voters who registered at the polls on Election Day last November, and so far his review has turned up 458 votes with a high likelihood of being fraudulent (emphasis ours):

New numbers from New Hampshire’s Secretary of State’s office indicate that 458 people who voted here on Election Day may have possibility committed voter fraud. . . . According to data released earlier this year from the Secretary of State’s office following apublic records request from NHPR, 5,903 first time New Hampshire voters who registered on Election Day last November used an out-of-state license as their form of identification. That’s 0.78% of all people who voted in the election.

Yes, people with out-of-state licenses can show up and vote on Election Day in New Hampshire. . . . But to vote with an out-of-state license, you need to prove you hold domicile in the state. Showing a utility bill, a lease or a pay stub, can work to prove you actually live in New Hampshire. . . . Voters without any proof that they live New Hampshire are allowed to cast their ballot, but they have to sign a legal document confirming they’re telling the truth about where they live. Signing that document opens them up to the possibility of prosecution if it’s proven they lied. 

Within 90 days after the election, the Secretary of State’s office mails letters to those people signing those affidavits. According to documents provided to NH1 News this week by the Secretary of State’s office, 6,033 letters were sent to people who voted in New Hampshire last November without proof of domicile. As highlighted earlier, 458 of those letters came back undeliverable. Many of the names of those people will be sent to the state Department of Justice for investigation and possible prosecution. . . . 

The Secretary of State’s office also sent out 764 letters following this past November’s election to voters who cast a ballot without a satisfactory photo identification. The is no information yet on how many of those letters were returned undeliverable.

There may be many more truly out-of-state voters who voted last fall in New Hampshire, in addition to the number of follow-up postcards sent to voters without photo ID that are returned as undeliverable.  Fortunately, the New Hampshire legislature is working on a bill to plug the hole in New Hampshire's laws that allow out-of-state voters to vote so easily, and with a Republican governor now in the Granite State, it likely won't be vetoed as similar measures have been in the past.

President Trump claimed that he and former Senator Kelly Ayotte lost the November 2016 election in New Hampshire due to fraud, earning an official letter requesting evidence from FEC Commissioner Ellen Weintraub.  This is likely just the start of the evidence that will continue to accumulate as New Hampshire election and Department of Justice officials investigate voters who lacked proper documentation in the 2016 election.

FEC Commissioner Weintraub: Hypocrite on Speech Seeks Control Over All Aspects of Federal Elections

Check out yesterday's post for the background to this post: a request for an ethics investigation into whether FEC Commissioner Ellen Weintraub misused FEC resources in criticizing President Trump's claims about vote fraud swinging the close 2016 New Hampshire senatorial election.

Commissioner Weintraub responded that she would "not be silenced," inventing a justification for her earlier statement by claiming that any fraud would involve spending money and implicate campaign finance rules, while also adopting an expansive view of her "official duties as a federal election official" that involves commenting on "any aspect of the integrity of federal elections in the United States."

There are two primary problems with Commissioner Weintraub's response.  First, her claims unilaterally and massively expanded the power and jurisdiction of the FEC to anything having to do with federal elections.  Not only does this contravene the law, which gives the FEC jurisdiction to administer and enforce the Federal Election Campaign Act, but it contradicts the FEC's own guidance, which maintains that many issues related to federal elections are outside the FEC's jurisdiction (it is worth noting that this document was originally issued when Commissioner Weintraub was already on the FEC).  So not only does Commissioner Weintraub want to ignore the law with regard to the applicability and enforcement of campaign finance rules to advance the policy goals favored by her but she also wants to disregard the statutory grant of authority to the FEC to interpret its jurisdiction as she sees fit.

Second, her free speech claim would be amusingly ironic if it were not so incorrect.  As an individual citizen, Ellen Weintraub has the same speech rights as any other citizens, fully protected by the First Amendment.  But as a government employee and official, her speech is limited by many laws and rules when she is using official time and resources. She has free speech but not on FEC letterhead to feign imprimatur of the agency.  Her attack on President Trump's statement had nothing to do with a legitimate investigation or action by the agency.   More to the point, she claims free speech to use government resources to carry on her personal propaganda against the President.  But she consistently votes and advocates to regulate average Americans, even major news organizations like Fox News, to prevent them from exercising their rights to free speech. This is hypocrisy of the highest order.

Those in the election, non-profit, and political communities rightly fear an unlawful FEC, if it operated as Commissioner Weintraub would direct.

FEC Commissioner Weintraub: Using FEC Resources to Engage in Partisan Activity

Former FEC Commissioner Ann Ravel's ally at the FEC, Ellen Weintraub, has also been active in demonstrating the Democrat FEC commissioners' political bias.  After President Trump's call for an investigation of voter fraud last month and his statements about fraud contributing to the defeat of Sen. Kelly Ayotte in New Hampshire, Commissioner Weintraub issued an official statement from her office as Commissioner questioning the statement and calling upon President Trump to share evidence of the claim.

The problem is that the FEC does not have jurisdiction over vote fraud, election administration, or federal elections broadly.  The FEC's jurisdiction is campaign finance, yet Commissioner Weintraub used official FEC resources to question the President's statements on fraud.  In a complaint filed yesterday with the FEC's Inspector General, Cause of Action called for an investigation (internal citations omitted):

CoA Institute requests that you open an investigation to determine whether Ellen Weintraub, a Commissioner of the Federal Election Commission (“FEC”), violated applicable ethics regulations when she used government property and official time to call on President Trump to provide evidence of his claims of voter fraud in New Hampshire and then continued to promote her statement after it was issued. We also urge you to determine whether it is appropriate for the FEC website to continue to host Commissioner Weintraub’s statement. . . . 

When subsequently asked her about her statement, Commissioner Weintraub answered that “[a]s a commissioner on the Federal Election Commission, I fight every day to build the faith of the American people in our elections. . . . It’s absolutely my right to raise public questions about another public official’s statements about the integrity of our elections.” In October 2016, however, Commissioner Weintraub took the exact opposite stance, stating through her Twitter account that matters of voter fraud were beyond FEC jurisdiction. Specifically, in response to the question “What is the FEC doing abt [sic] recent reports of voter fraud?” Commissioner Weintraub replied, “That’s outside the @FEC’s jurisdiction. We do campaign finance *only*. The elections themselves are handled by the states.”

OGE regulations regarding the use of government property provide that “[a]n employee has a duty to protect and conserve Government property and shall not use such property, or allow its use, for other than authorized purposes.” . . . Pursuant to these rules, Commissioner Weintraub may only use FEC property and act in her official capacity for purposes that advance the FEC mission as authorized by law. . . . In compliance with its authorizing statute, the FEC website describes its jurisdiction as being limited to “the financing of campaigns for the U.S. House, the U.S. Senate, the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. . . .” As evidenced by her tweet in October 2016, Commissioner Weintraub was and is aware of the boundaries of the FEC’s authority.

Despite her knowledge of the FEC’s limited jurisdiction, the two subjects discussed in Commissioner Weintraub’s February 2017 statement — investigating alleged voter fraud and New Hampshire felony criminal violations — go beyond that jurisdiction. In addition, the statement was issued on FEC letterhead and remains, as of the time of this letter, posted on the FEC website. Commissioner Weintraub also used her official time and status to prepare the statement, direct her staff to format and publish the statement, and promote the statement on CNN and NPR. For these reasons, Commissioner Weintraub’s use of government property to issue the statement and the time she took to defend that statement in national media outlets are violations of the ethics regulations to which she is subject.

Though Commissioner Ravel has left the FEC, Commissioner Weintraub has shown no interest in leaving.  This is unfortunate, as her recent actions further de-legitimize and politicize the agency.  Check out tomorrow's post for information on Commissioner Weintraub's response.

Revisiting Drive-by Voter Fraud in New Hampshire

After the close of the first primary in the nation, allegations of vote fraud started to surface.  Campaign staffers and other out-of-state, "drive-by" voters voted in the New Hampshire presidential primary. 

If you are not a citizen in a state, you do not have the right to vote there. If you think that vote fraud is overblown, take a few minutes and check out the following video filmed during the New Hampshire primary. The left keeps asserting that vote fraud is not an issue and that voter ID laws are too strict. Based on the video, perhaps this is why.

The New Hampshire Attorney General's office has opened an investigation into allegations that Bernie Sanders' campaign staffers who were in the state on Election Day wrongfully voted in the New Hampshire primary.

RNLA officers called attention to the potential for fraud by out-of-state voters prior to the election. Vice President for Finance Joanne Young wrote:

On a bipartisan basis, led by Democrat Secretary State Gardner and Republican legislators, Granite Staters have tried to make sure it is the people of New Hampshire, not out of state campaign workers, that determine election results. . . . The effect of this sort of vote fraud can be profound. . . . Close state house races are often decided by a very small margin, even tying. . . . A few votes from out-of-state people can literally change the winner of a race. 

New Hampshire RNLA Chapter Leader Norman Silber discussed the impact out of state voters have in New Hampshire:

There are numerous reports of people voting who were in New Hampshire on Election Day but did not live in New Hampshire. Most are not investigated, let alone prosecuted. For example: In 2008, Secretary Gardner witnessed AmeriCorps volunteers who planned to leave on December 1 register at the polls and vote. In 2012, Alana Biden, Joe Biden’s niece, signed an affidavit to vote, claiming the address of Democratic State Senator Martha Fuller Clark as her home. Several other Obama-Biden campaign workers did the same, despite only being in New Hampshire to work for the election. In 2008 and 2012, Lorin C. Schneider, Jr., of Carver, Massachusetts, voted in Manchester’s Ward 9 despite being a long-time resident of Massachusetts. The New Hampshire Attorney General charged Schneider and he pled guilty to wrongful voting.

Drive-by voting is one form of fraud that distorts election results. It is an issue that clearly persists despite laws enacted to combat it. Requiring voter ID is a great first step, but it is not enough to combat the kind of vote fraud committed by Sanders' campaign staffers in New Hampshire.

Sanders Obliterates Clinton in NH, Ties on Delegates?

Despite the large margin by which Sen. Bernie Sanders defeated Secretary Hillary Clinton in the New Hampshire primary, she leaves the state with 15 delegates, half the state's total. The Democratic National Committee’s delegate allocation system is strange to say the least:

Sanders won 60 percent of the vote, but thanks to the Democratic Party’s nominating system, he leaves the Granite State with at least 13 delegates while she leaves with at least 15 delegates.

New Hampshire has 24 “pledged” delegates, which are allotted based on the popular vote. Sanders has 13, and Clinton has 9, with 2 currently allotted to neither. [Since the article, delegates committed leaving the candidates at 15 a piece].

But under Democratic National Committee rules, New Hampshire also has 8 “superdelegates,” party officials who are free to commit to whomever they like, regardless of how their state votes. Their votes count the same as delegates won through the primary.

As it stands, Sanders, who has been the bane of Clinton’s seemingly foregone procurement of the presidential nomination, has an extremely difficult path ahead due in no small part to delegate allocation.

Conversely, the GOP system is far clearer and geared toward a fair and open election of the best candidate. The state of New Hampshire’s GOP executive director noted:

The process is not open to discretion. Our delegates are bound to vote proportionally.

The RNC has a far more clear and concise, democratic process for candidate selection while the DNC utilizes a system that functions to negate the will of the people in favor of the will of the establishment.

Biden’s Niece Likely Committed Vote Fraud

One of the reasons that the political operatives on the left fight so hard for vote fraud is so they can vote . . . illegally where they don’t live or have an intent to reside.  Don’t take our word for it, listen to the Democrat New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardener who was supporting Republican efforts to stop this practice in New Hampshire. 

Gardner said he likes the new proposal, particularly a House amendment that makes it clear that "working on political campaigns is not sufficient evidence" to make someone eligible to vote in New Hampshire.

He said it doesn't take much to swing state-level races.

"We had three ties in the last election cycle, one in the primary and two in the general election," he said. "And we had six other recounts that were in the single digits."

Not just small races are involved in this effort nor is this new.  Well-funded campaigns such as those for President can import thousands of volunteers to temporarily live, lie about their intent to reside, and then vote.  This practice has been going on for years and is one of the reasons the left fights so hard against voter ID. 

For example, the Milwaukee Police Department’s Special Investigations Unit "Report of the Investigation into the November 2, 2004 General Election in the City of Milwaukee" uncovered a number of employees of a liberal environmental group and of the Democrat nominee for President voting in Milwaukee with no intent to reside there. 

The investigators found, through media and Internet sources, that the two organizations, in their own words, placed thousands of staffers and volunteers in Wisconsin during the course of this election cycle….[T]he persons described in this section represent multiple levels of both of the organizations; from upper management to the street level canvassers. …There does remain a strong possibility that the discovery of these random staffers voting illegally is the proverbial ‘tip of the iceberg’ as it relates to an illegal organized attempt to influence the outcome of an election in the state of Wisconsin.” 

What makes the current situation even more newsworthy is the most recent example, which involves the niece of a potential Presidential candidate:

Election Day is always big in New Hampshire, and in the months leading up the general election last year, Alana Biden the vice president’s niece, worked on the campaign of President Barack Obama in the Granite State.

Biden voted on Election Day by swearing in an affidavit that her domicile was 145 Steinmetz Drive in Manchester. After the election, she left the state and moved to New York, according to her LinkedIn profile.

State Sen. Martha Fuller Clark, D-District 21, has eight people registered to vote under her single-family address in Portsmouth. Several of them came to New Hampshire to work on campaigns for various periods of time and voted in elections before moving on.

Does anyone really believe that Ms. Biden was intending to permanently reside with 8 other campaign workers in a State Senator’s house in New Hampshire?  More importantly just think of how easy it would be for an unscrupulous and well-funded Presidential campaign to import thousands of “workers” into New Hampshire to “live” and vote only to return right after the election. 

New Hampshire is right to fight for a change in the law to stop this.  The Wisconsin Police had an even better way back in 2004 report when they advocated, Photo Voter ID with address. 

As an alternative, if On-Site registration is to continue in its present form, then the presentation of a government issued identification card that includes the voter’s name, address (including city) and date of birth should be presented before that person is allowed to register and vote.  The inclusion of identification alternatives such as a credit card bill, library card, lease, etc., where no photo is provided, does not ensure that the person presenting these types of documents is in fact the person they are asserting to be.   

Ms. Biden won’t be prosecuted.  And if the Democrat Governor has her way, Ms. Biden may get a chance to vote for her uncle in New Hampshire or New York or for that matter anywhere his campaign or allied group will pay her to work that has same day registration laws.  

NH Governor Overrules Democrat Secretary State Efforts to Prevent Vote Fraud

Democrat New Hampshire Governor Maggie Hassan vetoed a bill that would require a 30-day waiting period to vote claiming the bill “places unreasonable restrictions upon all New Hampshire citizens’ right to vote in this state…”

Also the bill would redefine domicile to a person’s primary residence or abode in a state where people could vote in an election although they may be simply visit for a short time and intend to move. Even political campaign workers or consultants could vote in New Hampshire under the current laws.

Requiring voters to be in the state for 30 days before voting would have prevented this type of voting that goes against the spirit of the law. Democrat Secretary of State Bill Gardner supported this bill. Gardner knows that every New Hampshire vote counts. He stated:

We had three ties in the last election cycle, one in the primary and two in the general election, and we had six other recounts that were in the single digits.

Gardner also emphasizes that in order to vote in New Hampshire, “…working on political campaigns is not sufficient evidence.”

Other Republican lawmakers were disappointed in Hassan’s veto. House Majority Leader Jack Flanagan said,

Our citizens should have a reasonable expectation that their vote will not be cancelled out by temporary visitors," he said. "Under our existing laws our doors are still technically open for people with little intent on staying here to participate in (the presidential) primary. That seems unfair to most people, and it’s unfair to the process we hold so dear.

The state legislature will vote on vetoed bills in September and hopefully Democrats will follow Secretary State Gardners lead to prevent vote fraud and "drive by voting" instead of the Governor's efforts to allow vote fraud and out of state political consultants voting.