Heads Up NH Voters!
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 01:09PM I received my OBJECTION TO MOTION TO INTERVENE today in my humble mailbox here on the dead end road.
And guess who is objecting to my simple, factual, citizen produced, constitutional right to intervene in a court case allowing non-residents to vote in my NH supervised Federal Election?
Our good old Attorney General, Michael Delaney, through his attorney, Richard Head, is not interested in The Coalition of New Hamsphire Taxpayers, or me, intervening in the NH League of Women Voters case against resident NH voters.
Our NH Attorney General says I do not have a right, through his use of a quote, "a right involved in the trial and his [or her] interest must be direct and apparent" to defend my NH vote from outsiders.
This must mean letting out of state college students with out of state drivers licenses (I.D.), vote on a ballot issue involving income taxes in NH they will never pay, or what congressman I might have, is fine with the AG's Office as long as no one else can offer evidence or testimony.
It is assuming a voter who posseses a drivers license in another state, and subsequently, a legal address there, has more of an interest in my state than I do.
Stay tuned.
Reader Comments (4)
First, thanks for bearing this torch to rouse the monsters from Frankenstein's gilded dome down in Concord. I know many who appreciate your efforts. Second, perhaps the very important politically appointed Pooh-bahs could be pressed to explain how any NH citizen does not have a right to present their complaint to a court when two classes of citizen are created vis-a-vis license to own and operate motor vehicles, participation in the jury process, option to vote in at least two different states, and I suspect the many various taxing schemes administered by the Grate State of New Hamster (employment tax, business tax, alcohol tax, etc). Just some fuel fer the fire.
– C. dog
The case brought by the NH League of Women voters is quite laughable if you read it in English.
Maybe there is a translator in court who will read it out loiud in another language and then it will make sense.
They say:
Voters in NH have a "voting domicile" as if there are different types of domiciles.
Then they argue that a resident of NH does not have to have a drivers NH license to drive here, as though a resident is not a person who has a "voting domicile." Nice trick.
But in the real world the state you have a drivers license in is your legal residence which equals your domicile. You affirm that fact when you apply for a drivers licence in any state.
The out of state drivers license is proof that you are domiciled in a different state.
Driving licenses are a privilige provided by the state you are domiciled in.Your address is non the damn thing.
NH can no more give a drivers license to a non-resident than it can let a non-resident vote here because - I have a constitutional right to a legitimate vote NOT watered down by non-residents with out of state domiciles on thier drivers license.
The students are being used again by the ACLU and the Democrat Party.
Last night I thought I had seen and heard everything, when I heard the news that the Obama administration had told Lockheed Martin that they did not need to obey the law in regard to sending out impending layoff notices, but the response from our alleged attorney general tops even that.
As a citizen (legal resident) of New Hampshire, you, I, CDog and anyone else who has their primary residence here has every right and interest in making sure that only residents are allowed to vote, and vote only in one locale.
As you so eloquently state in your posting, we have every reight to expect the voting process here to be completely legitimate and not diluted by non-residents who claim future resident staus only for as long as it takes them to fill out a ballot.
See also my comments on your Taylor Pacheo posting.