GST Testimony Against Drive-By Voting

Apr 16, 2019 by

GST Submitted Testimony Against SB 67 which would repeal HB 1264 and bring back Drive-By Voting.

Click here for status information and a link to read the bill, which adds the following statement to current law:
“A person who satisfies the definition of resident or inhabitant in this section, but who does not have a current intent to maintain his or her domicile or place of abode within New Hampshire for the indefinite future, including military personnel, a student of any institution of learning, or a person employed for a fixed term, is not a resident for the purposes of Title XXI of New Hampshire’s statutes governing motor vehicles.”

Adding “for the indefinite future” would again allow residents of other states to claim domicile and vote in NH.
The bill exempts any such person from being subject to “New Hampshire’s statutes governing motor vehicles.”
Specifically exempting “a student of any institution of learning” and “a person employed for a fixed term”.
Campaign workers, usually recruited from non-swing blue states, are of course employed for a fixed term.

In short, SB 67 would repeal the reforms of HB 1264 and bring back “Drive By Voting.”

The House Election Law Committee met 4/26/19 to hear testimony.
GST Chairman Ray Chadwick provided the following statement.
House Election Law Committee Members
Ladies & Gentlemen
Your Committee is considering SB 67 “An Act relative to the definitions of resident and residency.”

Granite State Taxpayers Opposes passage of Senate Bill 67 for the following reasons:

SB 67 does not change the definition of either resident or residency.
It creates exemptions from obligations under “Title XXI of New Hampshire’s statutes governing motor vehicles.”
The result would be “special classes” of residents who are free from the obligations visited on other residents.

Creation of different groups obliged, or not, under law is an affront to the concept of Equal Treatment under the Law. Equal Treatment is guaranteed by Part 1, Articles 2 and 11 of the NH Constitution and Amendment 14 of the US Constitution.

In it’s 7/12/2018 Opinion Regarding the “Definition of Resident and Residence” the NH Supreme Court stated:
“the premise of opponents’ arguments (to HB 1264) is that New Hampshire is required to have a special rule of domicile solely for voting premises, so that persons are allowed to vote here without assuming the other obligations of citizenship normally imposed.The opponents of the bill have not cited, nor are we aware of any authority supporting such a requirement under the Federal Constitution or the constitution of any state.”

SB 67 reverses the effect of House Bill 1264.
HB 1264 deleted “for the indefinite future” from RSA 21:6 and 21:6a, making the definitions of resident, residence and domicile the same. This then required voters to be residents, and ending the ability of residents of other states to claim domicile and vote in New Hampshire..

We again reference the NH Supreme Court decision regarding House Bill 1264, which stated:
“the fundamental issue posed by the questions submitted is whether the State of Federal Constitution requires the State of New Hampshire to permit persons to vote in this state who claim residency here for voting purposes while eschewing this status for other purposes. We have no hesitancy in opining that not only does New Hampshire have no such constitutional obligation but, quite the contrary, it has a compelling state interest not to do so.”

Granite State Taxpayers supported HB 1264. For the reasons above, we urge a decision of “ITL” on SB 67.
Thank you for your consideration.

Ray F.Chadwick, Chairman
Granite State Taxpayers

Click here to find your Legislators. Tell them to oppose this legislation!

Related Posts

Share This