The Problem With Senate Bill 3

The problem with Senate Bill 3 is that it doesn’t go far enough, as explained below.  That said, it is a baby-step in the right direction that can be easily improved upon, and it probably is the best that can be expected under the current RINO (Republican-in-Name-Only) legislature.

If Senate Bill 3 is defeated, which would take GOP votes, it would mean the GOP chose to make no improvements to New Hampshire’s porous voting laws, give the Democrats -who have been flat out lying about Senate Bill 3- an undeserved victory, and embolden the Democrats to escalate their voter-fraud schemes in 2018.

I extensively critiqued Senate Bill 3 in this post.  It bears repeating, however, that the recent United States Senate election was likely decided by out-of-State “campaign workers” and “volunteers” brought into New Hampshire by the Democrats in the weeks and even days before the election.

As noted in my critique such drive-by voting is perfectly 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.

Here is the vote tally from the Senate race:

Nearly twice as many persons were allowed to vote with no identification, 1,423, as Hassan’s margin of victory, 743.

The recurring anecdotal evidence of Democrat drive by voters in prior elections compels the conclusion that the voters who were allowed to vote with no identification in 2016 were “drive-by voters,” that is, Democrat “campaign workers” and “volunteers” brought into New Hampshire in the weeks and even days before the election.  Thus, it is reasonable to say that drive by’s, not true New Hampshire voters, probably elected Hassan to the United States Senate.

Senate Bill 3 is intended to reduce the incidence of drive-by voting.  As the Heritage Foundation recently explained:

… someone registering to vote within 30 days of an election must “identify and provide evidence of a verifiable action” taken to maintain a domicile in the state.

Just what are those “verifiable actions?” The bill establishes a wide-ranging list, including renting or purchasing a home in the state, obtaining a driver’s license, enrolling a child in a public school, attending a college or university, or obtaining a state-issued hunting or fishing license. Residence at a homeless shelter would also be sufficient.

The problem with Senate Bill 3 is that it contains an exception that swallows the rule.  More specifically, it allows voting without evidence of a “verifiable action.”  That is, it continues the present practice of allowing “drive-bys” to vote simply by signing an affidavit.   From Heritage:

SB 3 goes further still, allowing (as under current law) for same-day voter registration even if applicants do not have the required proof on hand. Applicants must sign an acknowledgment asserting their residency under penalty of voter fraud, and agree to provide the required proof to city officials within 10 days. That deadline is extended to 30 days in towns where clerks’ offices are open only part time.

The problem, obviously, is that there is no way to catch a “drive-by” after he or she has voted and then left the State.  Indeed, Senate Bill 3 expressly gives the drive-by ten and in some cases thirty days to make his or her getaway.  As I previously noted, it doesn’t matter how domicile is defined if the law allows one to vote without proving domicile.

Nonetheless, the GOP Representatives in the New Hampshire House should pass Senate Bill 3.

For one thing, Senate Bill 3 does improve the definition of domicile.  A future legislature can remove the affidavit-loophole to this definition.

For another thing, Senate Bill 3 is probably the best that can be expected from a RINO-controlled legislature, which the current legislature most certainly is.

And for another thing, the Democrats have been flat-out lying about Senate Bill 3.  From Heritage:

Requiring photo identification and proof of citizenship, and entering into interstate cross-check programs to root out voters registered in multiple states, are two sensible measures that would help to detect fraudsters before they cast a ballot, rather than afterward.

But that is not the bill before the Legislature. Of course, that fact has not stopped outrage-seekers from attacking SB 3 in typical outlandish fashion.

Activists have denounced the bill as a veiled effort to disenfranchise college students, despite “residency at an institution of higher learning” being the very first “verifiable act” listed in the bill as establishing voter eligibility.

The New Hampshire Democratic Party issued a statement baselessly accusing supporters of instituting a “literacy test.” The liberal group Priorities USA has smeared the measure as “voter suppression.” Perversely, Senate Democratic Leader Jeff Woodburn called it “an attack on the legitimacy of our elections.”

To defeat Senate Bill 3 would reward these dishonest, sleazy tactics.  It would allow the Democrats to claim, falsely, that the citizens of New Hampshire agree with them that any law that to any degree discourages drive by voting is “voter suppression.”

And to defeat Senate Bill 3 would open the floodgates to massive voter-fraud in 2018.  The Democrats would be able to tell “activists” around the nation that all they need to do to LAWFULLY vote in New Hampshire is to show up on election day, refuse to show identification, sign an affidavit claiming they are living at a New Hampshire address, vote Democrat and then leave.

(Another area of concern to me is that Senate Bill 3 is far too permissive as to voting by college students.  Please refer to my prior critique if you are interested in my thoughts on that.  But like the affidavit-loophole that can be fixed by a future legislature.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *