Let’s start by defining voter fraud.
Voter fraud occurs when someone who shouldn’t legitimately vote in New Hampshire votes in New Hampshire. Only permanent residents of New Hampshire should be considered legitimate voters. If a person is residing here only for a temporary purpose, he or she shouldn’t be allowed to vote here.
For example, someone who moved to New Hampshire just to work on a political campaign shouldn’t be allowed to vote in the corresponding election. As, for example, Joe Biden’s niece did in 2012: Continue reading NH State Senate GOP Takes a Pass on Voter Fraud
As I discussed in the prior post, Governor Chris Sununu has announced the creation of a Judicial Selection Commission. Unfortunately, the mission and composition of the commission indicate that Sununu has no intention of draining New Hampshire’s judicial swamp.
More particularly, the commission’s mission –which is to recommend judges based on “experience, good character and temperament” without considering judicial philosophy– and its composition –the Republican Chair was an activist-judge while the Democrat Vice-Chair helped select liberal, activist judges for prior Governor Maggie Hassan– mean the commission will not be trying to identify and recommend outstanding originalist/textualist (terms that will be discussed below) judges like the late Antonin Scalia. Continue reading Instead of Outsourcing the Selection of Judges, Here’s How Chris Sununu Should Do It
Governor Sununu’s announcement yesterday of a Judicial Selection Commission makes it clear that he has no intention of draining New Hampshire’s judicial swamp. The announcement:
Not the first sentence. The criteria for judicial selection will be “experience, good character and temperament.” Not a mention of judicial philosophy. In other words, Sununu is just as inclined to nominate a judicial liberal like Continue reading Chris Sununu Has No Intention of Draining New Hampshire’s Judicial Swamp
In May of this year, Joe Foster’s term as Attorney General will end and Governor Chris Sununu will be able to nominate a successor. Here are some questions that Sununu should ask anyone he is considering.
1. Beginning no later than Phil McLaughlin, who was appointed Attorney General in 1997 by then Governor and now United States Senator Jeanne Shaheen, Attorney Generals in New Hampshire have claimed the power to not defend legislation that they deem unconstitutional. A recent example is Joe Foster refusing to defend an education funding law. Do you believe the Attorney General has such a power?
The correct answer is Continue reading Questions for New Hampshire’s Next Attorney General
On Tuesday of this week, the Executive Council held a hearing on Governor Sununu’s nomination of Frank Edelblut to be Commissioner of the State Department of Education. A vote was supposed to follow at the Council’s meeting on Wednesday. It didn’t.
Democratic Councilor Andru Volinsky asserted that the vote would not be legally binding because State law requires as a prerequisite to the appointment of a Commissioner that the Governor consult with the entire State Board of Education, but Sununu had only talked to the Board’s Chairman.
Attorney General Joseph Foster, a Democrat, agreed with Volinsky’s interpretation.
Sununu responded by asking the Council to delay the vote to give him time to consult with the seven members of the Board of Education.
Sununu got snookered. Continue reading Sununu Snookered by Volinsky and Foster
Here is New Hampshire Attorney General Joe Foster’s announcement that he opposes President’s Trump Executive Order on foreign entry into the United States:
So according to Foster, Trump’s Executive Order violates the constitution by excluding foreigners from entering the United States based on religion.
But here are the relevant portions of Trump’s Executive Order:
(c) To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period described in subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals, pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).
(f) At any point after submitting the list described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Homeland Security may submit to the President the names of any additional countries recommended for similar treatment.
(g) Notwithstanding a suspension pursuant to subsection (c) of this section or pursuant to a Presidential proclamation described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may, on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked.
There is no mention of religion in the Executive Order. Rather, entry by the nationals of seven countries identified by the Obama administration as hotbeds of terrorism -Syria, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen- is suspended for 90 days, to allow the development of heightened vetting procedures.
The affected nations are Muslim-majority countries, but other Muslim-majority countries -Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, for example- are not on the list. Moreover, the Executive Order applies equally to non-Muslims.
In short, there is no targeting by religion.