The Real Myth About Voter Fraud in New Hampshire is the Myth That Voter Fraud is a Myth

The Democrats, the #nhpolitics press and the GOP Establishment insist that voter fraud is a myth.  They doth protest too much, to borrow a phrase from the bard.

It is beyond cavil that in 2016 drive-by –out-of-State– voters tipped New Hampshire to Maggie Hassan, and it is certainly arguable that they also tipped the State to Hillary Clinton.

Here’s the 2016 vote tally for President and United States Senate:Hillary beat President Trump by 2,736 votes, while Maggie got only 1,017 more votes than Ayotte.  The question, needless to say, is how many of these votes were fraudulent.

We can answer this question because we have a good handle on the number of drive-by voters from data provided by the New Hampshire Secretary of State and we can make reasonable estimates of how these votes split between the Democrats and the GOP.

There are various categories of drive-by voters.  Let’s start with the largest.  Those who are allowed to vote with out-of-State licenses.

From a recent report by the New Hampshire Secretary of State:

It is reasonable to assume that these 5,333 voters were primarily out-of-State college students.  From a September, 2017 article by Kevin Landrigan regarding the Secretary of State’s report:

Last February, Gardner reported about 5,900 “new” voters — those not on the pre-election checklist — who cast ballots last November presented out-of-state driver’s licenses at the polls. Among this group, nearly two-thirds of them voted in college towns: Durham (1,608); Hanover (774); Keene (624); and Plymouth (397).

The total from the towns listed by Landrigan comes to 3,403.  Landrigan’s count, however, is clearly incomplete.

Add in the “new” voters in towns and cities not counted by Landrigan that are adjacent to the towns he listed or are themselves the locations of colleges:

Dover (113 – UNH), Goffstown (186 – Saint Anselm’s), Henniker (135 – New England College), Hooksett (165 – SNHU), Manchester (264 – SNHU and Saint Anselm’s) and Rindge (214 – Franklin Pierce)

and we are up to 4,367.  I am going to assume –in order to make the math easy and because the rough count above certainly missed some college students (because I din’t list all adjacent towns)– that 4,500 of the 5,333 voters who voted in 2016 using an out-of-State license and who did not subsequently obtain a New Hampshire license were out-of-State college students.

Democrats have suggested that this vote would have split evenly between the parties.  In other words, “no harm, no foul.”  Poppycock.

According to Pew, young voters -voters aged 18 to 29- went for Clinton 55 percent to 37 percent.  This gap is among young voters in general.  It is reasonable to assume that the gap is significantly higher among college students choosing to vote in New Hampshire rather than their home-States.

As New Hampshire Public Radio has conceded, “college towns have consistently given Democrats a boost, especially in general elections”.  For example, the Secretary of State’s records show that Hanover went for Hillary over Trump 6,561 to 926 or more than seven to one.  Needless to say, this is why the Democrats and their surrogates such as the ACLU frantically oppose any and all efforts to prevent out-of-State college students from voting in New Hampshire.

Let’s assume that three-quarters of the 4,500 out-of-State college students voted Democrat, an extremely cautious assumption given -as noted above- that Hanover went for Clinton 6,561 to 926 or more than seven to one.  This nets to 2,250 drive-by votes for the Democrats.  “Un-counting” these votes gives Ayotte approximately a 1,250 vote victory over Maggie, and cuts Hillary’s margin over Trump to less than 500 votes.

So without even counting the other types of drive-by votes, we can say with certainty that drive-by college voters –out-of-State college students who voted in New Hampshire without an intention of becoming residents of New Hampshire– chose New Hampshire’s United States Senator in 2016.  Indeed, it seems to be common knowledge among college students:

Now let’s turn to a different category of drive-by voter.  The drive-by voter who was allowed to vote despite providing no ID.  From an article by Kevin Landrigan in #DyingPaper (aka Union Leader):

• Qualified affidavits: 440 voters. Nearly all of these 764 citizens signed an affidavit in order to vote on Election Day because they didn’t have or did not want to present a voter ID card prior to casting a ballot. Among this group, 377 did not return a postcard sent to verify their address and the post office reported another 63 postcards could not be delivered to the address given.

Because the Democrats and their surrogates such as the ACLU have frantically opposed all efforts to require voter ID it is reasonable to assume that these votes would split the same way the votes of out-of-State college students split.  It is likely that most of these 440 drive-by votes are Democrat campaign workers who moved temporarily to New Hampshire for the election and left afterwards.  Assuming that only three-quarters of these drive-by voters cast ballots for the Democrats nets 220 votes for the Democrats.  Back out these drive-by votes and Ayotte now has approximately a 1,500 vote victory over Hassan, while Hillary’s margin over Trump has shrunk to just a bit over 250 votes.

Another category of drive-by voter is the voter who gives a phony address:

• Domicile affidavits: 458 voters. These were people who registered to vote and signed an affidavit attesting the address they gave was accurate. There were 6,033 domicile affidavits and of those, 458 were reported as undeliverable to the address that had been given.

These are likely the proverbial “buses from Massachusetts,” out-of-State voters coming into New Hampshire on Election Day.  Using the same conservative 75 percent to 25 percent split, Ayotte’s margin now over 1,700, while Hillary’s margin is down to less than 40 votes.

The numbers show that it is vital that the Legislature gets HB 372 right and that the Governor sign HB 372.  New Hampshire elections should not be decided by out-of-State college students who choose to remain residents of their home-States, or by persons who refuse to present a legitimate ID or by persons who refuse to present legitimate proof of the location of his or her abode.

No Snowflakes, HB 372 is Not a Poll Tax

In 1966, in a case captioned, Harper vs. Virginia Board of Elections, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Virginia’s poll tax was unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment.  Under the law that was struck down, persons who were not current on the poll tax were not allowed to vote.

This case essentially applied the 24th Amendment (ratified in 1964), which provides as follows, to State elections:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

In other words, as a matter of constitutional law a poll tax is a law that conditions voting upon payment of some tax, fine or fee.

The Democrats and their allies such as the ACLU are claiming that HB 372 would impose a “poll tax.” Continue reading

Senate Amendment to House Bill 372 Does Not Go Far Enough

The right to vote has been described as one of the most precious of our rights.  But that right is meaningless if out-of-State voters are deciding New Hampshire elections.  Yet that is exactly what happened in 2016 in -at a minimum- in the United States Senate race and the Presidential contest.

Earlier this year, the Governor signed Senate Bill 3 into law, which tightens up the definition of who is allowed to vote in New Hampshire.  As I explained here, Senate Bill 3 did not go far enough.  There is a new bill, House Bill 372, which will address one of the problems with Senate Bill 3.  Yet it too does not go far enough.  Fortunately, it can easily be improved, as I will discuss below.

To assist the reader, I will divide this post into various sections. Continue reading

Bannon’s Correct: Trump Did Win New Hampshire (When You Subtract the Drive-By Votes)

Former White House chief strategist and current head of Breitbart News Steve Bannon created a firestorm recently when he spoke to a conservative group, the 603 Alliance, in Manchester, New Hampshire and stated that he believed that President Trump actually won New Hampshire:

“I believe strongly, and I’m prepared to put my money where my mouth is, that we won the state of New Hampshire,” he said. Continue reading

Grounds Exist to Remove #VolinskyAgenda From Executive Council. What’s Lacking is the Political Will.

Article 63 of the New Hampshire Constitution:

The members of the council may be impeached by the house, and tried by the senate for bribery, corruption, malpractice, or maladministration.

Does knowingly violating the First Amendment to the United States Constitution rise to the level of malpractice or maladministration?  I’d say so. Continue reading

No, the Alexander-Murray (Obamacare) Bill Does Not Reduce the Deficit

At least one member of  Governor Sununu’s staff is claiming that the Alexander-Murray bill, which restores the Obamacare “CSR” payments that President Trump recently ended, reduces the deficit:CSR -Cost Sharing Reduction- payments are a euphemism for the federal government forcing taxpayers to reimburse insurance companies for losses incurred as a result of Obamacare requiring insurers to charge lower premiums and/or deductibles to lower-income insureds.

As HotAir has explained, CBO basically “cooked the books” in order to claim Alexander-Murray reduces the deficit.  More specifically, Continue reading

No, Democrats Don’t Want to Have a Conversation About Preventing Mass-Shootings

One of the themes that Democrats and their surrogates in the press have been sounding since the mass-shooting in Las Vegas is that we “need to talk about gun control” in order to prevent more mass shootings. Continue reading

The Guare Case Shows How Democrat Judges and Democrat Attorney Generals Have Made New Hampshire the Poster-Child for Voter Fraud

In my last post, I noted the manic reaction of the Democrats and their surrogates to a recently released report that shows the magnitude of voter fraud in the 2016 election.  Here’s what one of those surrogates, the ACLU-NH, had to say:Note the reference to the Guare case.  And from the most powerful Democrat surrogate in New Hampshire, WMUR, again reference to the Guare case:

But the Guare case actually shows how Democrat judges and Democrat Attorney Generals have made New Hampshire the poster-child for voter fraud. Continue reading