Progress Progressives Hate

Boo Hoo, the poor voters of Peterborough and some other elite, liberal communities were asked to show photo ID in our recent election in New Hampshire.

How bugged out were the libs who refused to show photo ID as a protest of the new law? Just imagine a two year old not getting their way. In other words, they went bat crap.

But it puzzles me that so many progressives are upset with photo ID in NH when it is pretty much the law in their original home state of Massachusetts.

Story here:

http://www.ledgertranscript.com/article/voters-react-to-new-id-law

Here is how Massachusetts handles their one-party elections with the annual pre-determined outcomes where non-resident voting would probably not make a difference:

Ma. General Law Chapter 54

Section 76B. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a person desiring to vote, who fails to present suitable written identification when so requested by an election officer, shall be permitted to vote, but that person’s right to vote may be challenged under section 85.

(b)(1) Subject to paragraph (3), a person asserting a right to vote in an election for federal office shall present identification under paragraph (2) if:

(a) the person registered to vote in the city or town by mail after January 1, 2003; and

(b) the person has not previously voted in an election for federal office in the commonwealth.

(2)(A) A person meets the requirements of this paragraph if the person:

(a) in the case of a person who votes in person:

(i) presents to the appropriate election officer a current and valid photo identification; or

(ii) presents to the appropriate election officer a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the voter; or

(b) in the case of a person who votes by absentee ballot, submits with the ballot:

(i) a copy of a current and valid photo identification; or

(ii) a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the voter.

(B)(i) A person who desires to vote in person but does not satisfy clause (a) of subparagraph (A) may cast a provisional ballot under section 76C.

(ii) A person who desires to vote by absentee ballot but who does not meet the requirements of subclause (ii) of said clause (a) of said subparagraph (A) may return the absentee ballot by mail, and the ballot shall be treated as a provisional ballot under section 76C.

(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a person:

(a) who registers to vote by mail and submits as part of that registration either:

(i) a copy of a current and valid photo identification; or

(ii) a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or government document that shows the name and address of the voter;

(b) who registers to vote by mail and submits with that registration either:

(i) a driver’s license number;

(ii) at least the last 4 digits of the individual’s social security number; and

(iii) with respect to whom the city or town clerk matches the information submitted under clause (i) with an existing state identification record bearing the same number, name and date of birth as provided in that registration; or

(c) who:

(i) is entitled to vote by absentee ballot under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, 42 U.S.C. sections 1973ff-1 et seq.;

(ii) is provided the right to vote otherwise than in person under section 3(b)(2)(B)(ii) of the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act, 42 U.S.C. section 1973ee-1(b)(2); or

(iii) is otherwise entitled by federal law to vote otherwise than in person.

  The Ma. provisional ballot requirement, if in the law here in NH, would allow NH voters to track non-resident voters, after an election, to some extent. That might slow down the college campus non-resident voter recruiters as well.

I know it would help CNHT track non-resident voters who we find make up at least 10% of college voters statewide since we started tracking in 2000.

Comments

[dave]

States like Washington use the provisional ballot. If you aren't properly registered you are allowed to cast a provisional ballot that is held aside for I think 10 days during which time you must return with proper credentials or it is destroyed. I like this rather than allowing the person to vote after signing an affidavit but putting the ballot in the box.

Just so you don't think WA is that ahead of the times, they allow online ballots in advance. Talk about opportunity for fraud. The current governor also won election after they 'found' uncounted ballots in clerk's drawer. By the time the courts got through and decided the election was in error they declared it too late to correct.

[Ed Naile]

dave:

I would never count on the courts or the AG in NH to expose or prosecute voter fraud. That ship has sailed. The fraud in NH is woven into our process.

But if citizens demand better elections we may have a chance at stemming the easy catches.

Since the Dems eliminated most info used to catch non-resident voters when they got their chance provisional ballot at least let citizens target non-residents for exposure.