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:
Here is the key part of the Guare case:
For the purposes of this appeal, the State has agreed that the 2012 law that added the challenged language to the voter registration form, Laws 2012, 285:2, does not alter the statutory definitions of “domicile” and “residence.” The State has also acknowledged that the statutory definition of “domicile” and the statutory definition of “residence” differ. Further, the State has agreed that, to vote in New Hampshire, a citizen need only have a New Hampshire “domicile,” and need not be a New Hampshire “resident.”
By “the State has agreed,” the New Hampshire Supreme Court means “the Attorney General has agreed.” But the Attorney General’s agreement that the “2012 law” was not meant to change the statutory definition of domicile: (1) assured that the State would lose the case and (2) was undeniably not what the Legislature intended.
An op-ed by then Senate President Peter Brandon in response to the filing of the Guare lawsuit shows that the legislative intent of the “2012 law” was to clarify that the statutory definition of domicile required voters to manifest a present intent that New Hampshire is their home State:
The league’s lawsuit raises a very important question: Should a student who attends college in New Hampshire, but who lives in Nebraska, gets a scholarship based on residency in Nebraska, is claimed as a dependent for tax purposes by parents in Nebraska, has a driver’s license and car registration in Nebraska, and intends to return to Nebraska after graduating from college be allowed to vote in New Hampshire? The League of Women Voters thinks she should be able to vote here with no consequences. I think the student should vote in Nebraska. What’s more, she can do so easily by simply requesting an absentee ballot from her home state.
The bottom line here is that the student has choices. She can register and vote here — if she is also willing to change her driver’s license and car registration. Or she can vote absentee in her home state. She simply needs to pick one and accept the requirements either way. And either way she is not being disenfranchised. …
…, here is the political reality in New Hampshire. In 2007 Democrats, led by Senate Majority Leader Maggie Hassan, passed a law that said everyone should vote — wherever they want. Four years later, Republicans repealed that law, returning to the previous requirement that in New Hampshire everyone should vote where they live. It is worth noting that the U.S. Department of Justice approved these most recent changes prior to voters going to the polls on Sept. 11.
When Republicans repealed the 2007 law, the registration requirements returned to where they had been prior to 2007; people were informed that if they chose to vote here, they were also required to change their driver’s license and car registration to New Hampshire. …
In short, it is indisputable that the position the Attorney General -a Democrat appointee- took in the Guare case was the opposite from the Legislature’s. By doing so, the Attorney General intentionally tanked the case. From the Guare decision:
… it is undisputed that even though Guare, Blesedell, and Healey are not New Hampshire “residents,” they are entitled to vote in New Hampshire because they are “domiciled” here. … the challenged language is confusing and inaccurate, and … could cause an otherwise qualified voter not to register to vote in New Hampshire, … the burden it imposes upon the fundamental right to vote is unreasonable.
Stated more succinctly and accurately, the Attorney General, instead of defending the law, litigated the case in a manner that guaranteed the Democrats would prevail.
The New Hampshire Supreme Court -all Democrat appointees- was just as politically-motivated as the Attorney General. Consider the following from the Guare decision:
Although the State Constitution does not define “domicile,” the legislature has defined it as … The legislature has defined “residence” differently from “domicile.” … The basic difference between a “resident” and a person who merely has a New Hampshire “domicile,” is that a “resident” has manifested an intent to remain in New Hampshire for the indefinite future, while a person who merely has a New Hampshire “domicile” has not manifested that same intent.
The State Constitution does not define “free speech” either, but courts would never defer to a legislative definition of free speech. To understand why the Supreme Court did so in the Guare case, recall Bragdon’s op-ed.
Prior to the Democrats taking total control of State government in 2007 the “2012 law” had been the law in New Hampshire. Then the Democrats changed it to allow drive-by voting. In other words, the Democrats changed the definition of domicile in 2007. The Republican-controlled legislature passed the “2012 law” to restore the prior definition, but the Attorney General claimed just the opposite.
Rather than undertaking an authentic constitutional analysis of the “2012 law,” the Supreme Court instead framed the question as whether the “2012 law” was consistent with the very laws it was intended to clarify, which of course guaranteed that the “2012 law” would be struck down. In other words, in Guare the Supreme Court, far from being a neutral umpire, made up rules that guaranteed the Democrats would win.
In sum, it is fair to say that the State judiciary and the State Attorney General are as a practical matter taxpayer-funded subsidiaries of the State Democrat Party.