Meet Taylor Pacheco
Friday, September 28, 2012 at 07:28PM Back to the NH League of Women Voters v. NH.
Here is another Plaintiff, who could simply drive home to Ma. and vote, asking NH Judge John Lewis to re-write NH law and pretend words do not mean things so she can vote in NH:
13. Petitioner Taylor Pacheco lives at 68 Sixth Street, Dover, New Hampshire. She is 22 years of age and is a citizen of the United States. In August 2008, she came from 15 Kiah’s Way, East Sandwich, Massachusetts, to New Hampshire, in order to attend school at the University of New Hampshire. She expects to finish school in May of 2013 and currently intends to leave New Hampshire after graduation. She is licensed to drive in Massachusetts. (See appendix A-4 for sworn affidavit). She intends to vote in New Hampshire in the upcoming general election.
From the Massachusetts web site helping Mass. Residents determine domicile:
Change in Domicile from Massachusetts - Contesting Domicile Audit
A change in domicile will not be accomplished by a temporary or protracted absence from Massachusetts. A taxpayer must not intend to return. To change domicile, a taxpayer must demonstrate that he has taken affirmative steps consistent with his declaration.
A taxpayer's declaration of his intent will be subject to close scrutiny. One who asserts that domicile has changed has the burden of proving that fact. A number of factors will be considered in determining whether a taxpayer has changed his domicile.
Factors to be considered, the taxpayer has:
•purchased or leased a new home or an apartment in the new location;
•moved his personal property to the new location;
•obtained permanent employment in the new location;
•canceled Massachusetts bank accounts and opened new accounts in the new location;
•sold real property in Massachusetts or canceled leases;
•issued address change notices;
•changed voter registration;
•obtained a driver's license and automobile registration in the new location
•changed membership in churches and clubs;
•in general, the taxpayer is involved in the new community.
The NHACLU and NHLWV needed some plaintiffs to help turn out the traditional non-resident college vote that is HEAVILY Democrat.
Too bad these few girls are being used by the NHACLU, NHLWV, and a liberal justice system.
Reader Comments (8)
Even funnier, have you checked to see how long the "simple drive home" from Dover to East Sandwich, MA takes? Better yet, his assumption that Ms. Pacheco is not involved in the local community (after all, he chose to boldprint this requirement). He gives us only poor examples and assumptions. This is what you get when the main goal of your argument is voter suppression cloaked in prevention of voter fraud.
E. Dog
- Moving forward one letter at a time.
– C. dog seeks two co-eds to work out the kinks in his back
F. Dog
Above discourse as posted by Tim and the other dog follows the standard Democrat-Liberal-Progressive script, that being diversion and obfuscation so as to deflect from the underlying principle which is in play. "One Person - One Vote" and said vote to be cast in the primary residence of the voter as defined by the laws and regulations of the state, not some "activist judge".
If said student is paying out of state tuition, and/or lists their residence of record as somewhere outside the borders of New Hampshire, then they are not entitled to vote in our state.
Their recourse, which would not cause them "irrepable harm" is the absentee ballot, which can easily be obtained. This is the same process members of our military have to follow. Ex: One of the Air Force individuals I work with is being (temporarily) sent to Guantamano Bay. As he will be there during the upcoming election, he has already submitted his absentee ballot.
Or is it that in the view of the judge, these students at an instituion of higher learning are not capable of working through the terribly complicated process of calling home and asking Mom or Dad to get an absentee ballot and mail it to them.
In the final analysis, it does not matter how these individuals would vote, (although I agree soemwhat with D Dog in that if they perceived as more likely to vote Republican, the LWV or ACLU would have little or no interest in promoting their cause), as non-residents, they are not entitled to vote here.
'Course, none of this prevents you from ponying up to help these dameselles in distress by buyin' them a shiny new New Hamster license, unless of course, you're a little short of funds because the price of pot brownie mix has taxed your man-purse so. Too bad, cuz I hear a lot of fair maidens in distress across our hills and dales; so much fruit, so little time in which to pick it.
– C. dog always reaches for the best, and doesn't settle for the low-hanging
I will be able to prove after this thing is over that the League of Women Voters is only interested in ginning up Democrat non-resident voters they refer to as... are youready... "MOBILE DOMICILIARIES".
That is correct people, the NHACLU and NHLeague of Women Voters want to create a new class of voter called the "MOBILE DOMICILIARIES".
But there is a whol class of MOBILE DOMICILIRIES the NHACLU and NHLWV has purposely ignored. Wait until I tell you who they are!
It is almost funny to watch this unfold because if we wind up in Federal Court we will be the laughing stock of America for being the Ballot Box of New England.
Call your friends, relatives, and other NH residenst to come out November 6 and teach these libs a hard lesson.
Until then, don't argue with the room sniffing moonbats. It is a waste of time.