MacDonald: Three Ring Judicial Voting Rights Circus In New Hampshire

There is a voting rights suit moving up and down the judicial ladder in the Granite State.

No, it’s not the typical left-wing, ACLU, students who can vote in other states should be allowed to vote here kind of thing. This one has already been to the State Supreme Court, back to the lower court, petitioned again to the High Court because the lower Court ignored its orders, and we’re back again (sort of).

Dan Richards vs. Chris Sununu (Richard v Sununu). You may have heard of it. We’ve published reams of court filings on the case, which the State Supreme Court has said has standing. Dan has charged that the state is breaking a list of state and federal laws and engaging in unconstitutional behavior.

The basis for this is summarized in this pull quote from his most recent filing.

…challenging the Defendants (the state of NH’s) election practices, including the establishment of different practices and procedures statewide, unequal use of voting machines statewide, use of unverified absentee ballots, non-uniform voting procedures, and the ultra vires actions of the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission for federal elections.

Summarized, the State of New Hampshire has allowed “elections” to be conducted, with inconsistent procedures for how ballots are used, cast, and counted, and so on, which violates his rights (and yes, everyone else’s).

The Appellant alleges that these practices constitute criminal conduct under state election laws (e.g., RSA 657:24, prohibiting willful interference with voting rights, RSA 666:2 Official Malfeasance, RSA 666:3 Official Misconduct) and violations of federal election laws (e.g., 52 U.S.C. § 10101, by applying different standards, practice, or procedure different from the standards, practices, or procedures applied under such law or laws to other individuals within the same county, parish, or similar political subdivision of the State, and 52 U.S.C. § 20511, prohibiting voter intimidation or interference), as well as violations of procedural and substantive due process, equal protection under Part I, Articles 1, 11, and 12 of the New Hampshire Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and the Supremacy Clause.

The State Supreme Court, on appeal, remanded the case back to the trial court, which ignored the remand order, requiring Dan Richards to file with the State Supreme Court again in an effort to get the lower court to resume his case based on the matters with which the State Supreme Court stated he has standing. [Related: Murray: Welcome to the Granite State Gong Show]

[Keep Reading...]