(Hour 1c)
CNHT Ed Naile this segment of , updated us on the lawsuit, which apparently no longer
In this segment of A Question of Voter Fraud, Coalition of NH Taxpayers Chairman Ed Naile updated gave us an update on the lawsuit originally filed by Hannah Rivers, one of four out of state college students who claimed the right to vote despite maintaining out of state residences.
Apparrently, Rivers got cold feet, as dod the other original petitioners and have been replaced by a new crew, led by Maine resident and NH college student Annemarie Guare. (Note: Posted below the SoundCloud player is an explanation from Naile as well as the lawsuit which is before the NH Supreme Court. Naile raises the question, “Is New Hampshire really interested in protecting the voter laws currently on the books?” He then describes how the state of New Hampshire reacts when fraud is proven.
[soundcloud url=”https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/204181637″ params=”auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&visual=true” width=”100%” height=”450″ iframe=”true” /]
The three student petitioners are complaining they want to vote in NH and are currently licensed to drive in other states.
The inability to simply get an absentee ballot from their home state – but sue NH to vote here – shows they simply want to maximize their vote over the one they have legally in their legal domicile back home – just hours away.
That gives them an unconstitutional advantage over other voters – not by an accident of being in transition from one legal domicile to another but a deliberate attempt to game the election laws for registration and domicile.
The case should have been laughed out of court.
Here is the basis for their “mobile domicile” scam:
2. New Hampshire law permits all inhabitants with a voting domicile to vote in New Hampshire. RSA 654:1, I. A voting domicile is “that 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 . . . .” RSA 654:1, I. New Hampshire law explicitly permits students attending school in New Hampshire to choose New Hampshire as their voting domicile. RSA 654:1, I-a.
The NH Constitution says something different than the statement in Guare v. NH above:
[Art.] 11. [Elections and Elective Franchises.] All 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.
(Your legal domicile is the one place you reside – not simply the place you choose to vote. Domicile is a legal term defined in Black’s law dictionary and previous cases regarding voting.)
3. New Hampshire law separately defines “resident” as a person “who is domiciled or has a place of abode or both” in New Hampshire and “who has, 2 through all of his actions, demonstrated a current intent to designate that place of abode as his principal place of physical presence for the indefinite future to the exclusion of all others.” RSA 21:6. 4. New Hampshire’s law governing eligibility to vote does not require voters to be “residents” of the state as defined in RSA 21:6 or RSA 259:88. Specifically, unlike the requirements to be “resident” under those statutes, a New Hampshire voter need not have a “current intent” to maintain his “principal place of physical presence” in New Hampshire for the indefinite future.
NH Law does not “define” resident as a person who is domiciled or has a place of abode or both. NH uses resident interchangeably as many other states do, such as Maine where Ms. Guare is a domiciled resident. But to vote in NH you must be domiciled HERE. That is a simple undeniable fact.
