To prove to any Superior Court in New Hampshire that you are deserving of a Preliminary Injunction, one must prove that a harm is about to occur.
A “harm” would be something bad that is going to happen which the person affected has no other way of avoiding.
Here is the “harm” suffered by non-residents who wanted to vote in our NH election. From their case:
8. Petitioners’ constitutional right to vote is currently being chilled due to a conflict between the wording in the amended voter registration form and the explicit terms of specific statutes that define domicile and residency in varying ways for differing purposes. The amended registration form contains language that not only is directly contrary to the applicable law, but also violates the clear legislative intent to leave unchanged New Hampshire’s residency and motor vehicle statutes.
Now you have the NH League of Liberal Voters and NHACLU description of the “harm” about to be suffered by the non-resident students.
No mention that the non-residents could simply vote legally in their home state – where they have a driver’s license and a LEGAL address to put on the front of it.
There was no proof of anything that would stop a legal voter in NH from another state to voting there.
No proof of the “harm” other than a mention of a “chill.”
There was a false statement in the case the NHACLU brought on behalf of the League of Liberal Voters. Here it is, from their case:
“5. Chapter 285:2 directs the Secretary of State to prescribe a standard voter registration form for use throughout the state substantially in compliance with its provisions. The amended voter registration form prescribed by the new statute and promulgated in accordance with its provisions requires those registering to vote to affirm, inter alia, that
In declaring New Hampshire as my domicile, I am subject to the laws of the state of New Hampshire which apply to all residents, including laws requiring a driver to register a motor vehicle and apply for a New Hampshire's driver's license within 60 days of becoming a resident.
In other words, the amended voter registration form requires those registering to vote to affirm that they are subject to the New Hampshire laws applicable to residents, even though voters are not required to be “residents” of the state.”
Paragraph 5. of the NHACLU case is NOT factual and everyone knows it.
The new language in the law only asks non-resident voters to affirm that they have READ the paragraph.
The non-resident, and thank you Judge Moonbat Lewis for affirming that for me, could just vote in NH illegally and ignore the laws of NH as they have done, well, since the AG’s Office investigated non-resident voting in 2001.
So the non-resident voters are not “chilled” from stealing a NH vote as they would have done in a normal election year.
In the NH Attorney General’s defense of the new law he forgot to mention any of the above items a legitimate, unbiased court might find interesting. The AG forgot to bring documents I had in my Motion to Intervene, documents Judge Moonabt Lewis found interesting.
So Speaker Bill O’Brien was correct to send a NH House attorney to Dover to defend what the NH Legislature passed.
That is what I saw from my seat.