Nashua NH Democrat lets Out of State Campaign Worker Register to Vote from Her Home

Nashua New Hampshire Democrat Cindy Rosenwald is back in the spotlight.  If you recall, she's the one who admitted that her party not only knew it had left an 800 million dollar hole in the budget, but they planned to cut spending to fix it.  Well, now we find out that she knew there were out of state voters voting in New Hampshire, because at least one of them has been voting from her Nashua Address since at least 2007.

Ed Nail, here at NH Insider, recently reported on the voting history of a professional Democrat Campaign lackey by the name of Paolo Cozzi.    Mr. Cozzi lived on Clement Street in Sommerville, Massachusetts (Update- He is now currently living in DC).  But they had more than enough Democrats living in MA, so in 2007, 2008 and 2012, Paolo Cozzi hopped on the commuter rail (hey, that's why Liberals want rail service to Nashua), or got in his Obama-mobile--(Cozzi is employed in the service of OFA)--and put his vote to better use by claiming to live at 101 Wellington Street in Nashua, New Hampshire, the home of Democrat House Rep. Cindy Rosenwald.

Cozzi did vote from his Massachusetts "home" in 2010--remember 2010?  That was the year that a Republican actually had a slim chance to win in Massachusetts.  So OFA campaign animal Paolo Cozzi voted where it mattered more that year (in MA), but he mostly votes in the Granite State, from the home of Cindy Rosenwald at ...where was that again?   101 Wellington St, Nashua, New Hampshire.

I wonder if Ms. Rosenwald has ever taken in any other "stray cats" from the liberal campaign apparatus and allowed them to claim residence in her home for "voting purposes."

I'll guess we'll have to keep looking into that.

So!  Given these developments what do you think Ms. Rosenwald's position and voting history could be on domicile and voter ID in New Hampshire?

Thanks to our good friends at Granite State Progress (yes I cached the page) we know exactly how she voted.  She voted to make sure that her domicile-mate of electoral convenience Paolo, could continue to live in Sommerville,  Massachusetts (or anywhere else), and still vote in Nashua, New Hampshire--whenever the urge struck him, without fear of in-state interference.

Voting Rights

• Rep. Rosenwald voted against requiring every registered voter to sign an affidavit and be photographed before being allowed to cast a ballot if they do not present a photo ID. This legislation was anticipated to discourage voter participation and create long lines at polling locations. *ALEC Model Legislation* (SB289, Roll Call #244, 5/15/2012)
• Rep. Rosenwald voted against placing potentially unconstitutional and certainly unfair restrictive prohibitions on the voting rights of individuals who serve in the military or pursue college course work, whether full or part-time. This bill also would not have allowed elected officials to move from their present domicile to another, even when that domicile is in the same district. (HB176, Roll Call #73, 3/15/2011)
• Rep. Rosenwald voted against making it more difficult for college students, military personnel and visiting professionals to participate in the democratic process by limiting their access to the voting booth. *ALEC Model Legislation* (HB1354, Roll Call #80, 2/8/2012)
• Rep. Rosenwald voted against allowing a person to arbitrarily challenge a voter at the polls without reason. Previously, an accusation had to be accompanied by a signed affadavit (sic) attesting to the reason for the challenge. Election law experts testified against this bill, citing potential increases in challenges based on racial profiling or political gamesmanship; they also anticipated longer lines and wait times at polling locations as challenges are freely thrown around. (HB1301, Roll Call #99, 2/22/2012)
• Rep. Rosenwald voted Not Voting/Excused eliminating open primaries, which are a key part of the first in the nation primary. An open primary allows undeclared voters to participate in either the Republican or Democratic Primary as they see fit. (HB1595, Roll Call #139, 3/8/2012)
• Rep. Rosenwald voted against limiting voting rights to those with particular forms of photo ID. For example, a person could use a Massachusetts or Maine driver's license as a valid photo ID to vote, but not a municipal photo ID issued by Raymond or Londonderry. The requirement would cause confusion and frustration at the polls and is bound to result in preventing some voters from casting their vote on Election Day. *ALEC Model Legislation* (SB129, Roll Call #214, 6/1/2011)
• Rep. Rosenwald voted against placing language on voter registration forms that would intimidate students and other from voting in New Hampshire. *ALEC Model Legislation* (SB318, Roll Call #286, 6/6/2012)
• Rep. Rosenwald voted against requiring voters to show specific forms of photo ID when voting, a requirement that will disenfranchise voters who cannot meet those requirements (such as the elderly and disabled). This bill did not provide for any voter education of the new provisions, which could lead to people being turned away from the polls when they go to vote. (HB1354, Roll Call #306, 6/27/2012)
• Rep. Rosenwald voted against overriding Gov. Lynch's veto of a bill requiring registered voters produce photo ID before being allowed to cast a ballot. Voting rights advocates were opposed to this legislation. *ALEC Model Legislation* (SB289, Roll Call #307, 6/27/2012)

All very interesting.

So now we have to wonder...will Ms. Rosenwald take to the Internet to explain this to us?  What crazy story will she concoct?  Should we expect another "myth" post explaining away her complicity?  And will any of those "excuses" bring up questions that create new problems for the Democrat House Rep from Nashua?

We patiently await a response.

You are reading  "Nashua NH Democrat lets out of state OFA campaign worker vote from her home"   by  Steve Mac Donald originally posted at GraniteGrok.com (Home)

Steve has been recognized as the Americans For Prosperity Blogger of the month for December 2012

NH Voter ID Law Challenged - But not Very Well

This is really just too good to be true, right?  The Left Wing League of Women Voters and the American Uncivil Left-Wing-Liberties Union, have filed suit in New Hampshire on behalf of four “out of state college students” who want to vote here, but don’t want to be subject to any other laws pertaining to domicile.

Follow the stupidity closely because Democrats all over the state of New Hampshire are going to want to pile on to this, and you will want to make sure you are prepared to repeat what I am about to tell you so that you may smote them where they stand.

From Joan Ashwell, League of Women Vote Stealers…

‘‘Students are left with either signing a statement that doesn’t reflect New Hampshire laws or being forced to give up their constitutional right to vote,’’ said Joan Ashwell, election law specialist for the League of Women Voters of New Hampshire.

Actually, Joan, they do have another option.  It’s called the absentee ballot.  It’s this thing where people who are someplace else can still vote in their own home town, by mail.   This way people who have to be someplace they don’t live, can still vote where they live.  And Joan?  Every state I am aware of allows college students matriculating out of state to use them.  And if it matters, absentee ballots are also the number one choice of Democrats who are interested in committing voter fraud anywhere…right after arguing that people who do not want to be subject to domicile laws should still be able to pretend they live in Hew Hampshire so they can vote Democrat.

One more problem for Joan, before she gets too carried away in New Hampshire; the League of women voters also challenged the Indiana voter ID law in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board.  One of the “Indiana voters” in the League’s amicus brief, used as an example of someone who had difficulty voting because of the Indiana voter ID law, was trying to use a Florida drivers license to vote in Indiana.   As it turns out, she was also registered to vote in Florida where she owned a home and had filed for a homestead exemption on her property taxes–that’s only available to state residents.  So the woman who had been “denied the right to vote” in Indiana was a Florida resident, registered to vote in Florida and more than able to vote by absentee there and…would have voted in Indiana had the ID law not prevented it.  The law prevented vote fraud.

I wonder if any of the students she is representing have Florida drivers licenses?

Moving on?

Claire Ebel, director of the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union, compared the new law to an unconstitutional poll tax, saying it would discriminate against students who couldn’t afford to register their cars and pay driver’s license fees.

Um.  Claire?  If it is a poll tax to require students to register their cars or pay drivers license fees like every other person who lives in New Hampshire, then it must also be a poll tax for everyone else who lives in New Hampshire who can’t walk to where they vote.  We all have to register our cars and pay for a drivers license.  We all have to buy gas to put in our cars.   But just for you Claire, I’ll ask.

Show of hands.  Who in New Hampshire can walk to where they vote?  Not too many.  Holy crap Claire, time for a class action lawsuit.  And not just New Hampshire.  Every frikking state in the nation is discriminating against a super super majority of voters by requiring them to register their cars and pay for a drivers license, just so they can get to a polling place.  What’s next, cab fare, bus fare, and subway tokens—poll taxes!!

Claire?  You there?  Hello?  Claire?  Guess what would solve your so-called presumption that such costs are a poll tax?  Voting absentee ballot in their own home town would solve that Claire, which these college students have not been prevented from doing.  Wait.  Cost of postage…a poll tax!

Claire has allowed her left-wing palm-card-rhetoric to cloud whatever passes for common sense between her ears.  But we’re not buying it.

And Claire, Joan, I am not stupid.  I know that the entire point of the suit is not about poll taxes, or college students voting rights.  Isn’t it time to come clean?   The point is to suspend the law for this November so that out of state left wing voters (college students) can stuff local ballot boxes for Barack Obama in a swing state he desperately needs and (possibly) give bat Gurl–Democrat candidate for governor–a little boost in the process.

And this is a big problem for Claire, and Joan, and the NH Democrat party;  making all those kids sign the waiver and lie under oath, and break the law,  is probably more than most of their left-wing professors or town Democrat party Chairs can convince them to overcome.  But simply suspending the law for this one tiny election, could be just enough to get Obama the votes he needs to win New Hampshire.

You all know I’m right.  Even Claire and Joan know it is true.

Yes…please call your state reps  or anyone that matters, and let them know, that you know, whats up.  Do not let the Democrats get away with this.

And not that it matters, but after ID was passed in Indiana, voter participation rose, and the anti ID harpies have still not been able to produce an actual voter who lived there, who was prevented from voting as a result.

And the climb in New Hampshire is even higher for the League of Women Vote Stealers,  and not just becasue the Indiana case they lost is settled law all the way to the Supreme court…but becasue in New Hampshire the people they are trying to “defend” are admitting they do not even live here.

You are reading "NH Voter ID Law Challenged but not very well"  by Steve Mac Donald originally posted at GraniteGrok.com (Home)

Bipolar Domicile Syndrome…For Voting Purposes…

The New Hampshire TEA Party Republican Legislature did a lot more than just eliminate the 800 Million dollar deficit Democrats willingly left behind, while writing a balanced budget, and estimating revenues that came in on target.  They also managed to repair some damage to election law in regard to domicile.

SB318, vetoed by Governor Lynch, was overridden by both the House and Senate  (House Roll Call)(Senate Roll Call) and become law.  And while there are several important corrections to the forms and language that were made the one that strikes me as the most important is this.

Struck…

[A person’s claim of domicile for voting purposes shall not be conclusive of the person’s residence for any other legal purpose.]

“A persons claim to domicile for voting purposes shall not be conclusive of the person’s residence for any other legal purpose.”

This was inserted into the law when Democrats ran the legislature to allow anyone who was in the state to vote here on election day.  And ‘anyone’ could.   They could vote for Presidents, congressman, Senators, state house offices, Executive Council, Governor…and inevitably, or at least potentially (as long as they were on the list), your local offices, local warrant articles, school and town budgets, local spending, whatever their hearts desire and or as directed by the Democrat party of New Hampshire and their fellow travelers in the university system.

An army of available Democrat voting ballot stuffers on tap.

This is what allowed students whose declared legal residence was outside of New Hampshire to vote Democrat in New Hampshire, even though most of them were paying out of state tuition rates, carrying out of state drivers licenses, and not having any intention of staying after college (see NH Brain Drain).

But they were helping the New Hampshire Democrat party steal votes, and tax dollars, from you, by trying to make your vote meaningless.  And New Hampshire Democrats wanted that, defended it, enshrined it in law, and to this day do everything they can to make you believe that this is something other than a game of political chess where they add extra pieces to give them the advantage.

You’ll be happy to know that not one Democrat in either chamber of the NH Legislature voted in favor of making SB318 law.  And they can make all the excuses they like, but you can’t run away from the facts.  New Hampshire democrats legalized ballot stuffing and out of state influence on local elections when they allowed people who lived outside New Hampshire to vote here, simply becasue they felt certain the majority of them would vote for them and their agenda.  And this exactly why they are against voter ID.

Voter ID doesn’t make it harder for legal residents to vote.  There is no proof that it does, has, or ever will.   But what it does do is make it harder for Democrat voting college students to have bi-polar domicile syndrome, when New Hampshire Democrats need to stuff your local ballot box with their out of state influence.

And making it legal does not make it ethical.  Your vote is perhaps your highest form of political speech.  A majority left wing faction legalized the theft of  votes from the legitimate residents, erased them with the votes of people whose home towns are outside New Hampshire, by making unethical behavior legal.

Claiming it was legal does not make it right.  Letting the government define your morality is far from flattering.  And defending the practice does not salvage your character either.  Encouraging voter fraud is immoral and unethical.  And demanding that we continue to permit it to occur should be the equivalent of political suicide.

And on that note,  here is a list of every elected Democrat (and Republican) that voted to continue the practice of allowing out of state residents to influence local elections by claiming Democrat diagnosed bipolar domicile disorder.

Note: No Democrat voted in favor on the final vote for SB 318.  Those missing from this list were excused, absent or did not vote.  Republicans who voted against as well as State Senate Democrats are also listed

Aguiar, James	Democrat	Grafton	6	Nay
Almy, Susan	Democrat	Grafton	11	Nay
Baroody, Benjamin	Democrat	Hillsborough	13	Nay
Berube, Roger	Democrat	Strafford	2	Nay
Bouchard, Candace	Democrat	Merrimack	11	Nay
Browne, Brendon	Democrat	Strafford	4	Nay
Butynski, William	Democrat	Cheshire	4	Nay
Cali-Pitts, Jacqueline	Democrat	Rockingham	16	Nay
Campbell, David	Democrat	Hillsborough	24	Nay
Chase, Cynthia	Democrat	Cheshire	3	Nay
Cloutier, John	Democrat	Sullivan	4	Nay
Cooney, Mary	Democrat	Grafton	7	Nay
Cote, David	Democrat	Hillsborough	23	Nay
Coulombe, Gary	Democrat	Coos	4	Nay
Daler, Jennifer	Democrat	Hillsborough	4	Nay
Deloge, Helen	Democrat	Merrimack	12	Nay
DiPentima, Rich	Democrat	Rockingham	16	Nay
Foose, Robert	Democrat	Merrimack	1	Nay
Frazer, June	Democrat	Merrimack	10	Nay
Gagnon, Raymond	Democrat	Sullivan	4	Nay
Gidge, Kenneth	Democrat	Hillsborough	24	Nay
Gile, Mary	Democrat	Merrimack	10	Nay
Gimas, John	Democrat	Hillsborough	12	Nay
Ginsburg, Philip	Democrat	Strafford	7	Nay
Gorman, Mary	Democrat	Hillsborough	23	Nay
Gould, Franklin	Democrat	Grafton	11	Nay
Grassie, Anne	Democrat	Strafford	1	Nay
Hamm, Christine	Democrat	Merrimack	4	Nay
Harding, Laurie	Democrat	Grafton	11	Nay
Hatch, William	Democrat	Coos	3	Nay
Hawkes, Samuel	Democrat	Cheshire	3	Nay
Hooper, Dorothea	Democrat	Strafford	5	Nay
Horrigan, Timothy	Democrat	Strafford	7	Nay
Jeudy, Jean	Democrat	Hillsborough	10	Nay
Johnsen, Gladys	Democrat	Cheshire	3	Nay
Kaen, Naida	Democrat	Strafford	7	Nay
Keans, Sandra	Democrat	Strafford	1	Nay
Lefebvre, Benjamin	Democrat	Sullivan	1	Nay
Leishman, Peter	Democrat	Hillsborough	3	Nay
Levasseur, Nickolas	Democrat	Hillsborough	11	Nay
Lindsey, Steven	Democrat	Cheshire	3	Nay
Long, Patrick	Democrat	Hillsborough	10	Nay
Lovejoy, Patricia	Democrat	Rockingham	13	Nay
MacKay, James	Democrat	Merrimack	11	Nay
Merrick, Evalyn	Democrat	Coos	2	Nay
Moody, Marcia	Democrat	Rockingham	12	Nay
Nordgren, Sharon	Democrat	Grafton	9	Nay
Norelli, Terie	Democrat	Rockingham	16	Nay
Owen, Derek	Democrat	Merrimack	4	Nay
Pantelakos, Laura	Democrat	Rockingham	16	Nay
Parkhurst, Henry	Democrat	Cheshire	4	Nay
Pastor, Beatriz	Democrat	Grafton	9	Nay
Patten, Dick	Democrat	Merrimack	11	Nay
Pelletier, Marsha	Democrat	Strafford	5	Nay
Perry, Robert	Democrat	Strafford	3	Nay
Pierce, David	Democrat	Grafton	9	Nay
Pilotte, Maurice	Democrat	Hillsborough	16	Nay
Potter, Frances	Democrat	Merrimack	10	Nay
Ramsey, Peter	Democrat	Hillsborough	8	Nay
Read, Robin	Democrat	Rockingham	16	Nay
Rhodes, Brian	Democrat	Hillsborough	22	Nay
Rice, Chip	Democrat	Merrimack	12	Nay
Richardson, Gary	Democrat	Merrimack	4	Nay
Roberts, Jenna	Democrat	Strafford	7	Nay
Rokas, Ted	Democrat	Hillsborough	12	Nay
Rosenwald, Cindy	Democrat	Hillsborough	22	Nay
Sad, Tara	Democrat	Cheshire	2	Nay
Schlachman, Donna	Democrat	Rockingham	13	Nay
Schmidt, Andrew	Democrat	Sullivan	1	Nay
Schmidt, Peter	Democrat	Strafford	4	Nay
Serlin, Christopher	Democrat	Rockingham	16	Nay
Shaw, Barbara	Democrat	Hillsborough	16	Nay
Shurtleff, Stephen	Democrat	Merrimack	10	Nay
Smith, Suzanne	Democrat	Grafton	7	Nay
Spainhower, Dale	Democrat	Strafford	2	Nay
Spang, Judith	Democrat	Strafford	7	Nay
Sprague, Dale	Democrat	Strafford	2	Nay
Sullivan, Daniel	Democrat	Hillsborough	8	Nay
Sullivan, Peter	Democrat	Hillsborough	10	Nay
Tatro, Bruce	Democrat	Cheshire	6	Nay
Taylor, Kathleen	Democrat	Grafton	2	Nay
Theberge, Robert	Democrat	Coos	4	Nay
Thomas, Yvonne	Democrat	Coos	4	Nay
Townsend, Charles	Democrat	Grafton	10	Nay
Wall, Janet	Democrat	Strafford	7	Nay
Wallner, Mary Jane	Democrat	Merrimack	12	Nay
Watrous, Rick	Democrat	Merrimack	12	Nay
Watters, David	Democrat	Strafford	4	Nay
Weber, Lucy	Democrat	Cheshire	2	Nay
Weed, Charles	Democrat	Cheshire	3	Nay
White, Andrew	Democrat	Grafton	11	Nay
Williams, Robert	Democrat	Merrimack	11	Nay

Republicans who also voted no. [All of  'The Usual Suspects']

Brown, Julie	Republican	Strafford	1	Nay
Brown, Paul	Republican	Rockingham	2	Nay
Charron, Gene	Republican	Rockingham	7	Nay
DeSimone, Debra	Republican	Rockingham	6	Nay
Dowling, Patricia	Republican	Rockingham	5	Nay
Drisko, Richard	Republican	Hillsborough	5	Nay
Emerson, Susan	Republican	Cheshire	7	Nay
Hoelzel, Kathleen	Republican	Rockingham	2	Nay
Kidder, David	Republican	Merrimack	1	Nay
Pilliod, James	Republican	Belknap	5	Nay
Robbins, David	Republican	Hillsborough	26	Nay
Russell, David	Republican	Belknap	6	Nay
Seaworth, G. Brian	Republican	Merrimack	7	Nay
Soltani, Tony	Republican	Merrimack	8	Nay
St. Cyr, Jeffrey	Republican	Belknap	5	Nay
Thomas, Joseph	Republican	Hillsborough	19	Nay
Vaillancourt, Steve	Republican	Hillsborough	15	Nay
Waddell, James	Republican	Rockingham	15	Nay

New Hampshire Senate Democrats voting no(All)

D’Allesandro, Lou	Democrat		20	Nay
Houde, Matthew	Democrat		5	Nay
Kelly, Molly	Democrat		10	Nay
Larsen, Sylvia	Democrat		15	Nay
Merrill, Amanda	Democrat		21	Nay

No Republican Senators voted against the veto override.

You are reading "Bipolar domicile syndrome...for voting purposes"  by Steve Mac Donald originally posted at GraniteGrok.com (Home)

Democrat Contradictions – Out Of State Influence in Local Elections

Democrats in New Hampshire take a lot of money from outside the state.  Don’t take my word for it, just go look it up.  Millions and Millions.  They use candidates, campaign committees, so-called non-profits, and even have super wealthy out of state special interest donors making personal donations here and there to move money around the campaign finance camp fire, often right into the state Democrat party coffer, then back out to your local races.

No one should be surprised or even taken aback at this because it is all part of the business of politics, every party does some of this, it is all perfectly legal, and everything was fine up until the point when the New Hampshire Democrat party decided to make it a recurring campaign issue against Republicans.   It wasn’t Democrats who were affected by objects of out of state money and influence, just the Republicans.

Democrats are clearly guilty of hypocrisy on the  issue (no surprise there), but whenever they start a narrative like this it is usually because they are doing something else that might be worse, that they need you to be distracted from.  And guess what?   They were.

When New Hampshire Democrats held the majority they made it legal for anyone claiming residence outside the state of New Hampshire to vote here.  So you could declare domicile in New Hampshire for just voting purposes without complication if your legal domicile for all other purposes was outside of New Hampshire.    This was the realization of a long time dream that had been brewing at the hands of left leaning bureaucrats, and hangers on, folks who had been looking for ways to use college kids to invalidate legitimate votes for years.

So how is that NOT legalizing out of state influence in local elections?

Were not just talking about left wing gay activists billionaires giving John Lynch money to run for governor (also here), or national progressives groups funneling millionaires contributions in state level franchises for Democrat canvassing, mailers, or lit drops, they did this at the actual ballot box.

They did it because a major voting bloc favorable to Democrats, college students, provided an opportunity for electoral success in towns with a college or university presence.  Being left leaning as a rule, liberal professors and on campus activists could rally even disinterested students and get them to the polls on election day–to vote Democrat.

Once at the polls they could easily sneak past the sleeping palace guards by use of same day registration (whose protections Democrats had also watered down for the same purpose) , get them a ballot (which was almost impossible to challenge without violating another law–thanks again to Democrats),  after which these out of state students could vote up and down the ticket, or on any item put before the actual residents of the affected towns on election day.  Once registered, they were free to rinse, lather, and repeat (for years and years until that name was (if ever) purged from the voting list by law),  as long as they or someone using their name was here on voting day, even if the legal residence was outside of the state of New Hampshire.

The New Hampshire Democrat Party legalized ballot stuffing with the votes of out of state residents.  They voted against Republicans fixing it, and now they want it back.

You are reading "NH Democrats legalized out of state influence in your local elections"  by Steve Mac Donald originally posted at GraniteGrok.com (Home)

Because Democrat Timothy Horrigan Asked…

Calling out Left wing hypocrisy is my meat and potatoes, so the other day, whilst asking (yet again) why anyone would trust Democrats given their party culture, I mentioned (again) that one of their current NH House candidates had previously voted here while claiming to live in another State.

New Hampshire Democrat Timothy Horrigan asked when the candidate, William ‘Hud’ Connery, admitted to living in Tennessee?  Another ‘anonymous commenter’ said the post was bogus and we had no proof.

I accept your challenge.  You want proof, here it is.

UNH Student William Hudson Connery III, announces that he voted in New Hampshire and is a resident of Tennessee.  He also encourages other out of state students to do the same thing.

Operative phrases…

“The Obama campaign is trying to get everyone we can to go down and vote in Durham.”

“If you are from out of state, it doesn’t matter…”

“I am from Tennessee and I voted Already.”

“…You are better off registering now.. (In NH because)…when the general rolls around you wont have to vote absentee in your home town.”

After telling out of state college students not to vote in their “home town” he tells them people died to give them that right.  Actually, no New Hampshire Democrats died to give them the right to vote in a state that does not include their home town.  All they did was use their majority to water down the rules to legalize the stuffing of local ballot boxes with the left leaning votes of out of state college students.

Side note: This guy is running for office with the support and defense of many New Hampshire Democrats.

Some time after voting in New Hampshire, Mr. Connery joins the Tennessee Democrat Party  (wow that picture looks very familiar), listing his town of residence as Nashville, TN, reaffirming the residency he declared while voting in New Hampshire.

Mr. Connery did eventually return to New Hampshire and is running for the NH State House (Rockingham – 17) after reaffirming his domicile in Tennessee in 2009, but in most cases-if the brain-drain arguments are true–these students do not stay nor come back.  They vote here, mostly for Democrats and in support of spending your tax dollars, diluting your ability to object to spending you feel might be excessive or unnecessary, and preventing you from choosing your representatives by significantly tilting the ballot toward the left.

It is worth mentioning that every Democrat running in Newmarket (Michael Cahill, Patty Lovejoy, and Marcia Moody) including Mr. Connery (maybe every Socialist-Democrat in the State?), are against clarifying domicile to prevent improper out of state influence on local elections, and they are also universally against photo ID for the same reasons. The Incumbent Democrats running voted against changes to domicile and requiring photo id (which are now law despite them).  But given the opportunity, they would return us to watered down rules that invalidate legitimate votes with the votes of people who not only vote here when declaring domicile outside the state, but encourage others to do the same as student Connery did.

And claiming it is legal is no excuse. The government can legalize anything it wants–conveniently enough–if it just… has… enough… votes.

Arguing that people who claim to live outside the state should be allowed to vote here–who just happen to overwhelmingly vote for Democrats and watering down voting rules–is not just advocating out of state influence (in contradiction to another thing New Hampshire Democrats insist they are against), it is stuffing the ballot box to give them even more votes in town councils and the state legislature, to legalize other behaviors that could give Democrats more political power over the rest of us.

Making it legal does not change the fundamental issue at hand.   It makes it impossible for actual residents to choose their own candidates or to ensure that warrants, spending, any measure on their local ballot, passed or failed because of the will of the people who truly live there.

Republicans have tried to give that voice back to you, by simply asking people to commit to living here before voting like they do; and to demonstrate some evidence of that commitment before they vote to spend New Hampshire residents money or to select candidates who will have the same power.  And before you say it….those out of state college students have not been denied their right to vote.  No one died in vain to protect that.  They can vote absentee, in their own home town, just like everyone in the military and military families have done for years, when they have volunteered to be someplace else in the world.

New Hampshire Democrats sanctioned the ultimate form of out of state influence on local elections by making it legal for non-residents to cast votes here.  And now they want it back.

And before I forget…did I answer your questions?  Or are the candidates actual own words and actions inadmissible before the Democrat court of opinion?

You are reading "Because Democrat Timothy Horrigan Asked..."  by Steve Mac Donald originally posted at GraniteGrok.com (Home)