The United States Supreme Court issued a decision in late June, 2017 that established that the Attorney General’s position on Senate Bill 193 was erroneous. I blogged about the decision on June 27th, more particularly about how it affected the “Croydon” bill (Senate Bill 8). More recently (November 25th), I explained how the decision affected Senate Bill 193:
It is very disturbing that it took the Attorney General six months from the time that the United States Supreme Court issued the Trinity Lutheran decision to correct the erroneous legal advice that he gave the legislature back in April.
Second, why are some House Republicans outsourcing their duty to uphold the State and federal constitutions to the executive branch? Stated slightly differently, if the Attorney General hadn’t at the proverbial eleventh hour reversed his constitutional thumbs-down on Senate Bill 193 would House Republicans have voted against the bill notwithstanding the Trinity Lutheran decision?
Third, when is the Attorney General going to advise the legislature and affected school districts that the Trinity Lutheran decision renders the Croydon bill, Senate Bill 8, unconstitutional to the extent that it discriminates against religious schools:
The assault occurred during a November 16, 2016 recount for a State Senate seat won by the GOP. The victim of the assault, Susan Olsen, was present as an observer for the GOP, while Rogers was present for the Democrat candidate. Continue reading →
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 →
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.