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:
The enabler of Biden’s voter fraud, Democrat State Senator Martha Fuller Clark, had no problem with Biden, and others, cancelling out the votes of actual New Hampshire residents:
State Sen. Martha Fuller Clark, D-District 21, has eight people registered to vote under her single-family address in Portsmouth. Several of them came to New Hampshire to work on campaigns for various periods of time and voted in elections before moving on.
“Drive-by voting” like this is “legal” in New Hampshire because Democrats held the Governor’s office from 1997-2003 and 2005-2017 and appointed judges and Attorney Generals who interpreted the domicile requirement so laxly as to eliminate it:
According to the Secretary of State’s Office, the law allows a pretty wide interpretation of who’s eligible to vote. Deputy Secretary of State Dave Scanlan said that in theory, a person could move into the state a day before an election, establish domicile in the state, vote and then leave the next day.
In 2016, there were over 7,300 instances of potential drive-by voting. More particularly, on election day 1,423 persons were allowed to vote with no ID at all while 5,903 were allowed to vote using out-of-State licenses.
The 7,300-plus registrants on election day with no ID or out-of-State licenses far exceeded the margins of victory in the two top of the ticket races:
Because the bulk of these election day registrants voted in Democrat strongholds, it’s reasonable to conclude that voters who either presented no ID or registered using out-of-State licenses decided who won New Hampshire’s electoral votes and who would serve as United States Senator.
Nobody should ever be allowed to vote without a valid New Hampshire photo ID unless he or she can present both photo ID to establish his or her identity and reliable documentation to establish that he or she is currently a permanent resident of New Hampshire.
New Hampshire’s voting law, which allows voting with just out-of-State IDs and no ID at all is an open invitation to voter fraud as this video demonstrates:
New Hampshire Public Radio, which I have taken to calling the opposition, asserts that the vast bulk of same-day registrants using out-of-State IDs are college students.
To which I respond: so what? If a college student has not obtained a New Hampshire driver’s license that should be taken as proof that he or she sees New Hampshire as only a way station, not as his or her permanent home.
There is a bill in the New Hampshire State Senate, SB3, that would tighten up the absurdly lax definition of domicile:
1 Voter; Domicile. Amend RSA 654:1, I to read as follows:
(b)(1) An inhabitant’s domicile for voting purposes … shall be the principal or primary home or place of abode of a person. Principal or primary home or place of abode is that home or place in which his or her habitation is fixed and to which a person, whenever he or she is temporarily absent, has the intention of returning after a departure or absence therefrom, including when the person is absent because of military service or temporarily absent as described in RSA 654:2.
(2) In determining what is a principal or primary place of abode of a person, without limitation the following factors or evidence relating to such person may be taken into account: civic and community participation, the place where a person spends most nights of the year, the location from which a person would apply for a passport or other federal identification, residence for income or other tax purposes, eligibility for a resident hunting and fishing license, and a New Hampshire driver’s license.
(4) A person shall not be considered to have gained a domicile in any town or ward of this state into which he or she comes for temporary purposes only, without the intention of making it his or her home but with the intention of leaving it when he or she has accomplished the purpose that brought him or her there. Evidence that a person who, prior to arriving in New Hampshire, was domiciled in another state and is temporarily present in New Hampshire for any purpose including, but not limited to vacation, short-term temporary work, volunteering for social or civic purposes, or volunteering or working on political campaigns is not sufficient evidence that the person has established a domicile in New Hampshire.
However, the State Senate GOP intends to continue the practice of allowing people to vote without first proving domicile:
Outlining the plan in a State House interview, [State Senator Regina Birdsell] said her bill would continue the existing practice of allowing people who do not show positive photo IDs at polling places to fill out and provide election officials with an affidavit swearing that they are domiciled in New Hampshire.
It doesn’t matter how domicile is defined if the law allows people to vote without proving domicile.
Another problem with the State Senate GOP’s bill is that it will allow college students to claim domicile in New Hampshire, even if they are residents of a different State:
If you are not a first-year student and you still don’t have a New Hampshire driver’s license, that is enough for me to prove that the student has not made and indeed does not even consider New Hampshire his or her permanent residence.
In sum, the State Senate GOP’s bill will do little to stop the pervasive and consequential voter fraud in New Hampshire. If the State Senate GOP really wants to do something about voter fraud, it must change the law to prevent people from voting before they prove domicile.