×
×
homepage logo
LOGIN
SUBSCRIBE

Probationary period for voting would disenfranchise many

By Staff | Jun 2, 2015

In recent years, New Hampshire has been at the forefront of a national Republican Party push to suppress voter turnout by complicating the election process. While the goal of these proposed roadblocks is questionable – no credible evidence has been presented to justify the Republican obsession with “voter fraud” – their implementation has not always been successful in New Hampshire, either.

Last month, the state Supreme Court issued a ruling on a 2012 Republican-sponsored law that sought to confuse the voter registration form by conflating the definitions of “domicile” and “residence.” The Court unanimously ruled this law unconstitutional, writing that the voter registration form statements were “inaccurate,” and that the state had given false reasons for enacting the measure.

That ruling hasn’t stopped Republican partisans from throwing more voting restrictions against the wall to see what sticks. Gaining significant traction this year is SB 179, which would add new language to the voter registration form stating that an individual must live in New Hampshire for 30 days prior to casting a ballot here.

Supporters of this bill on the House Election Law Committee explained its purpose in the form of a hypothetical. Without SB 179, we were told, someone could drive into New Hampshire, stay in a hotel room for a night, declare that hotel room their legal domicile and vote in our election the next day.

While it is true that someone could choose to do that, current New Hampshire statutes make it clear that they would be violating our laws in doing so. The voter registration form defines “domicile” and makes clear that misrepresenting one’s domicile is a class A misdemeanor under current law.

If someone really was determined to commit “voter fraud,” SB 179 would do nothing more than current law does to stop them. The proposed penalty for violating the 30-day requirement is no different than the penalty for misrepresenting domicile under current law.

If an individual is so intent on breaking the law that he would actually drive across the state line and declare a hotel room as his established domicile, he certainly isn’t going to be deterred by an additional statement on the voter registration form that carries the same penalty.

So rather than putting a stop to anyone who would attempt to commit “fraud,” this bill would deny the fundamental right to vote to anyone who happens to move at the wrong time.

With four elections in most New Hampshire communities next year (presidential primary in February, town meeting/election in March, state primary in September and presidential election in November), it is quite possible that one-third of the people who move here would be barred from participating in an election after making New Hampshire their home.

Republican leadership likely doesn’t even believe this proposal will stop determined lawbreakers. Speaking earlier this year in support of legislation repealing concealed carry permits for handguns, House Majority Leader Jack Flanagan stated that, “Those with criminal intent will continue to obtain, carry, and use firearms in illegal ways. Impeding the rights of lawful gun owners based on the actions of criminals is unfair.”

Impeding the rights of lawful voters based on the actions of criminals is exactly what SB 179 does.

Establishing a probationary period for voting certainly isn’t going to stop those who wish to break the law; it will only disenfranchise those who are honest and law-abiding.

The young teacher who moves to New Hampshire in August to start her new job will be prevented from participating in September’s state primary.

The software engineer who is relocated to New Hampshire in October will be barred from voting in November’s election of candidates who will represent her for years to come.

The elderly couple who are transferred to a new nursing home in January will be denied the right to vote in the New Hampshire Presidential Primary – even though there’s a good chance at least one presidential candidate paid a personal visit to their nursing home.

These people aren’t attempting to commit fraud by voting here. They certainly aren’t “drive-by” voters. But they will all be denied their fundamental right to vote simply because of an overreaching law pushed by the Republican party.

Representative David E. Cote, D-Nashua, is the current ranking Democrat and former chairman of the House Election Law Committee.

Newsletter

Join thousands already receiving our daily newsletter.

Interests
Are you a paying subscriber to the newspaper? *