Just 2 Weeks Before Midterms Activist Judge Bars New Hampshire Proof of Residency Requirement For New Voters
So Democrats who demand open borders now want open elections where you don’t even have to show that you are a resident when you register in the district where you will be voting for the mayor, city councilmen, local judges, school board members. And of course, you’ll never have to show an ID when you go to vote either.
This ruling will die once it’s heard at the Supreme Court, but that’s hardly the point. The temporary injunction against the Republican-backed law comes two weeks before U.S. Congressional elections that will determine whether opposition Democrats or U.S. President Donald Trump’s Republicans retain full control of the federal government’s legislative branch. The idea that proof of residency because saying it would lengthen lines at polling places is ludicrous. –GR
A New Hampshire activist judge on Monday put a temporary injunction on a Republican-backed law requiring new voters to show proof of residency when they register.
The judge says requiring proof of residency would lengthen lines and make it harder for students, disabled voters and others to cast their votes.
“Where the law threatens to disenfranchise an individual’s right to vote, the only viable remedy is to enjoin its enforcement,” Judge Kenneth C. Brown wrote in his decision.
The judge also said the registration form is too complicated for people to understand.
Reuters reported: The temporary injunction against the Republican-backed law comes two weeks before U.S. Congressional elections that will determine whether opposition Democrats or U.S. President Donald Trump’s Republicans retain full control of the federal government’s legislative branch.
The measure, which passed largely along party lines and went into effect last year, required those seeking to register within 30 days of an election to present documents proving that they live in the area where they intend to vote. Without such proof, they must agree to either send it in within 10 days or the state will seek to verify their domicile.
The law does not require proof of address when voting.
The legislation is the subject of a lawsuit filed by League of Women Voters of New Hampshire and other groups, who said it would disenfranchise numerous groups including students, the disabled and homeless voters. The measure will be put on hold while the merits of the case are decided.
New Hampshire Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter, a Democrat, welcomed the ruling.
“This law undermines our state’s reputation for holding free and fair elections, and it hurts our democracy,” she said in a statement.
The New Hampshire Associate Attorney General said through a spox that the state is reviewing the court order, according to Reuters.
New Hampshire has a long history of voter fraud and everyone who lives there knows this to be true.
In February of 2017, Project Veritas undercover journalists caught election officials in Nashua, New Hampshire welcoming out of state voters with open arms.
N.H. Election worker: “If you want to vote today, you might want to tell them that you’re staying with a friend and you’re here indefinitely which sounds like it’s true.”
P.V. Journalist: “Ok, got you. It’s not 100% true. But I understand.”
N.H. Election worker: “Right, but you’re here indefinitely and your address is at your friend’s house and then you would be able to vote.”
The Washington Times reported last year that vote fraud may have tipped New Hampshire against Trump since it was such a tight race:
More than 6,500 people registered to vote in New Hampshire on Nov. 8 using out-of-state driver’s licenses, and since then the vast majority have neither obtained an in-state license nor registered a motor vehicle.
How can the registration form be too complicated to understand? If they can’t fill out basic information, they don’t need to be voting. That’s insulting and condescending.