Let me see.
Superior Court Judge Conboy rules that the new law, Senate Bill 98 which allows, by amending RSA654, only political parties to buy the Centralized Voter List our pal Secretary of State Bill Gardner controls through the Help America Vote Act is unconstitutional.
But what were we voters really supposed to get from SB98?
For one the Libertarians got screwed because only political parties defined by RSA 652:7 can buy the list from Gardner. This definition requires the political party to have garnered at least 4% in the last election. Bye, bye, small parties! Hello back room deals.
And what did the ethical Democrat Party do with the lists?
They sold them to candidates and collected a hefty profit, $325,000.00 we know of.
They should pay the money back because it was a shady deal from the start.
Check out the last paragraph in the new law, RSA 654:46:
II. No party shall use or permit the use of voter information provided by the secretary of state under paragraph I for commercial purposes as defined in RSA 654:31, I(b). Whoever knowingly violates any of the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor if a natural person or guilty of a felony if any other person.
Source. 2007, 377:1, eff. July 18, 2007.
Now read RSA 654:31, I(b):
(b) ""Commercial purposes'' means knowingly using, selling, giving, or receiving the checklist information for the purpose of selling or offering for sale any property or service unrelated to an election or political campaign.
652:1 Election. – ""Election'' shall mean the choosing of a public officer or of a delegate to a party convention or the nominating of a candidate for public office by voters by means of a direct vote conducted under the election laws. The term does not include caucuses or conventions. The types of elections are further defined in this chapter.
Source. 1979, 436:1, eff. July 1, 1979.
It reads like the selling of voter checklists to the two favored parties was intended to be a money maker. But the law also says the selling could only be for an election or campaign.
Unless the Democrats can prove that the $325,000.00 they leveraged out of the presidential candidates through generating and passing a NH law favorable to themselves was used strictly for an election and NOT for any portion of maintenance of the Democrat Party itself such as rent, salaries, insurance, etc., then they broke the law.
US Congressman Tom Delay has found himself indicted on an almost exact opposite circumstance.
Is this what Senator Burling intended when he drafted SB98?
“Fosters Daily Make An Excuse For Democrats” has an Opinion piece about the Conboy decision that is totally off the mark but has some interesting info in it.