Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Bank Slate
Betsy Devine
birch paper
Democracy for NH
Granite State Progress
Mike Caulfield
Miscellany Blue
Pickup Patriots
Re-BlueNH
Still No Going Back
Susan the Bruce
New Hampshire Labor News
Chaz Proulx: Right Wing Watch
Defending New Hampshire Public Education
Politicos & Punditry
The Burt Cohen Show
John Gregg
Landrigan
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes
Campaigns, Et Alia.
NH-Gov
- Maggie Hassan
- Jackie Cilley
NH-01
- Andrew Hosmer
- Carol Shea-Porter
- Joanne Dowdell
NH-02
- Ann McLane Kuster
ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC
National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo
50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Rhode Island
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
One of the New Hampshire Young Democrats' biggest priorities this year has been protecting our members' and others' voting rights from an onslaught by Speaker O'Brien and other extremists in Concord. I emphasize the word "extremists" because a significant number of Republicans have done the right thing along the way, which is why the original bill that O'Brien said we had to pass to stop young people from "voting liberal" (HB176) never got far.
But a different and equally egregious anti-voting bill came in the form of SB129, a bill to make it harder for students, the disabled, and others to vote by requiring certain kinds of photo ID. We and other organizations have been fighting every step of the way for most of the year. Today, we won that fight. The New Hampshire Senate voted overwhelmingly to sustain Governor Lynch's veto of SB129.
This isn't just a victory for young people or Democrats; it's a victory for democracy.
(Posted by Doug Lindner, Vice President of Public Affairs, New Hampshire Young Democrats)
When Gov. Lynch vetoed SB 129, the bill that would require voters to present photo identification before casting a ballot, he offered a very simple, very clear explanation.
An eligible voter who goes to the polls to vote on Election Day should be able to have his or her vote count on Election Day. SB 129 creates a real risk that New Hampshire voters will be denied their right to vote.
House Speaker O'Brien pooh-poohed his concern.
"It certainly is not a major imposition to ask for a driver's license or other ID in order to protect the integrity of voting."
("The League of Women Voters believes the only result of this bill will be to intimidate or harass people so much that they will not feel able to exercise their Constitutional right to vote." - promoted by William Tucker)
Speaker Bill O'Brien (R-Mont Vernon) doesn't need to get people to vote for Republicans in the 2012 general election. He's taking the more direct approach of making sure no one votes against them.
He's about to accomplish this through his usual route of no public hearings on bills, substituting committee members at voting sessions to ensure his chosen outcome and sending Representatives running crying from the room.
His plan to prevent college students from voting in New Hampshire was well publicized but since the courts ruled on the issue 40 years ago, there was little chance it would survive a legal challenge. His real effort has been to force through a much more insidious photo ID bill (SB129). This week's version of SB129 requires already-registered voters to produce a government-issued ID in order to get a ballot. The Secretary of State estimates 50,000 to 75,000 voters in next year's presidential primary and even more in the general election won't have the required ID.
O'Brien's version of SB129 is so extreme in its details that no other photo ID bill being pushed anywhere else in the country even begins to compare to it.
(Key part of the GOP strategy to disenfranchise voters. (Portion moved below the fold.) - promoted by William Tucker)
Next Tuesday, April 12, at 1:00 p.m. the New Hampshire House Election Law Committee will hold a hearing on SB129, AN ACT relative to presenting photo identification to vote in person and relative to the election fund.
Senate Bill 129, passed in the Senate last week, purports to be aimed at preventing voter fraud but is, in reality, nothing but an attempt to prevent certain groups of people from voting. The primary target is the 80,000 college students who are currently eligible to vote in NH. The collateral damage will be to the 40,000 or so elderly, disabled, poor and members of minority groups who don't have current government issued photo IDs.
According to Rep. Gregory Sorg, the real problem with student voters is that they are
focused on remaking the world, with themselves in charge, of course, rather than with the mundane humdrum of local government.
Oh, really? Sorg, of course, would know - because that sounds like a damned good description of what the (allegedly) more mature GOP supermajority in the NH House is aiming to inflict on the rest of us. In fact, it's difficult to imagine a Republican legislature that is less ideologically equipped to manage the "mundane humdrum of local government."
Where is a feasible plan to restore New Hampshire's economy and educate our kids for the 21st century workforce? Where are the jobs?
Much has already been made about yesterday's hearing on the bills that would disenfranchise young people from voting. Still, I don't want to move on before sharing this observation.
First, note how the bills' sponsor, Republican Rep. Gregory Sorg, described college students in his testimony. They are:
"transient inmates ... with a dearth of experience and a plethora of the easy self-confidence that only ignorance and inexperience can produce."
Compare that to House Speaker Bill O'Brien's view on the same group of people:
"They are kids voting liberal, voting their feelings, with no life experience," he said.
In a way, I am glad that neither of these older men had the wisdom they both imply older, experienced men should have. If they had, they would have kept their true feelings to themselves. But at least this way we don't have to pretend that this effort has anything to do with "voter fraud" or some of the other flimsy rationales thrown out in support of suppressing the youth vote.
It's obvious this has partisan politics at its root - young people allegedly vote more liberally. Therefore, reduce the number of liberal voters. Election advantage: Republicans.
But take a look again at those two statements from O'Brien and Sorg. The upshot is that the votes young people cast are of lesser value than their own because young people of voting age, in their eyes, are ignorant, inexperienced, and guided only by feelings.
That is what prejudice looks like.
No one would tolerate such an open admission from public servants had it been made about women, for example. Or people of color.
(first available in birch)
Three grafs that say it all about today's hearing on the unconstitutional and undemocratic bill to strip young people of their right to vote:
But more than 100 students from across the state overwhelmed the few supporters of this bill (HB 176) to contend this would be a strike against representative democracy.
Many mocked House Speaker William O'Brien, R-Mont Vernon, who recently told a conservative group in Rochester that out-of-state students attending school here should be unable to vote as they lack enough life experience and "think liberally."
and the conclusion:
No one in O'Brien's House GOP leadership team signed in support of the bill and Deputy Majority Leader Shawn Jasper, R-Hudson, was critical of the wording while questioning Sorg on Thursday.
Remember, House Speaker Bill O'Brien was quite clear a month ago that this effort was a priority for him:
Turning to the issue of voter fraud prevention, O'Brien said his party will "tighten up the definition of a New Hampshire resident."
..."They are kids voting liberal, voting their feelings, with no life experience," he said.
O'Brien is rattled. And changing his own game plan on the fly.
Mr. Speaker thought no one would notice while he undid the greatness of New Hampshire. Instead he woke a sleeping giant.
What do you think NH's House Leadership would do if they happened to pass by a large group of young adults in New Hampshire feeling completely disenfranchised by the proposed trampling of their rights?
Apparently, ignore them and close the door on their active participation in our state:
Sitting here waiting for the Election Law Committee hearing on HB 176. Right now they are holding a hearing on HB 223, also sponsored by Rep. Greg Sorg (R-Easton). Strangely enough. most of the speakers do not seem to know which bill they are speaking to. They are confusing the subject matter of the bills. HB 223 would get rid of same day registration.
From HB 176
I. Every inhabitant of the state 18 years of age and upwards who is a citizen of the United States shall have a right to vote at any meeting and in any election in the town, city, ward, or unincorporated place where he or she has his or her domicile.
II. An inhabitant's domicile for voting purposes shall be the most recent place where he or she as an adult or where his or her parents or legal guardians with whom he or she resided as a minor established a physical presence manifesting an intention to maintain that place as his, her, or their principal and continuous place of physical presence for domestic, social, and civic purposes.
III. No person who prior to matriculation at any institution of learning in this state, and no person employed in the service of the United States who prior to being stationed in this state, had been domiciled in another place shall lose or change that domicile by reason of his or her presence in this state, but shall be presumed to have departed from such other place for a temporary purpose with the intention of returning.
The following is a statement issued by the Young Democrats of America and the New Hampshire Young Democrats regarding HB 176:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Doug Lindner, NHYD Vice President of Public Affairs
Statement from the Young Democrats of America and the New Hampshire Young
Democrats
Defending the Voting Rights of Young People
February 23, 2011
The Young Democrats of America (YDA) and the New Hampshire Young Democrats (NHYD) strongly oppose efforts by Republicans in the New Hampshire legislature to
disenfranchise young voters across the state.
HB 176, which is backed by Speaker Bill O'Brien, would prevent students and members of the armed forces from voting in the town where they study or serve. The legislation is clearly in conflict with previous court rulings, including the U.S. Supreme Court.
"Constitutional rights should never be at risk because of partisan politics," said Rod Snyder, YDA Presient. "Republican lawmakers in New Hampshire are undermining basic democratic principles. They are trying to create a scenario where politicians choose their voters rather than the other way around."
"Instead of focusing on the economic issues they were elected to address, the Republican majority in the New Hampshire House of Representatives is working to stop many Granite Staters from voting," said Kaili Lambe, NHYD President. "Speaker O'Brien's recent statement that 'kids are voting liberal, voting their feelings, with no life experience' is not only offensive but reveals the true political motivations behind HB 176."
On Thursday, February 24th, the House Election Law Committee will hold a hearing on the disenfranchisement bill. The New Hampshire Young Democrats are mobilizing young people of all political persuasions to testify against this undemocratic proposal.
###
Please join us tomorrow in Concord! RSVP via Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/event....
NHYD on Facebook
NHYD on Twitter
(Posted by Doug Lindner, Vice President of Public Affairs, New Hampshire Young Democrats)
Not satisfied with waging war on marriage, or conducting a kangaroo court against a democratically elected State Rep, Republicans in Concord want to make sure young adults in the state cannot exercise their right to vote.
HB 176 would take away the right of students, military personnel and others to vote in the town in which they reside for school or duty unless they can prove they have lived there prior to study or service and plan to continue living there.
This bill was filed ostensibly to prevent voter fraud, which recent investigations by the Secretary of State's office have shown to be close to non-existent. Could the real reason be this little slip of the lip by Speaker O'Brien?
He said students in college towns register to vote on Election Day "and are basically doing what I did when I was a kid and foolish, voting as a liberal.
"That's what kids do," he said. "They don't have life experience and they just vote their feelings. And they've taken away the town's ability to govern themselves. It's not fair."
This bill is really about disenfranchising potential Democratic voters, nothing more. Often elderly parents of NH residents are moved to NH nursing homes from out of state. Should they lose the right to vote? Should renters lose the right to vote? They may not be planning to stay in a town or city long enough to appease the new Republican majority.
Back in the real world, the town administrator of Rindge, home to Franklin Pierce University, had this to say (quotes from The Monadnock Ledger, 2/10/11):
" It is hard to deny the fact that students represent a major portion of our population."
"Their presence here in town has been a contributing factor for retailers to locate or expand here."
The presence of the university and its students helps Rindge economically. Disenfranchising them would negatively affect the local economy.
Focused like a laser on jobs or on killing the Democratic Party?
The hearing on HB176 will be held Thursday, February 24 at 2pm in Reps Hall. This is not only about disenfranchising students and military personnel. Our two party system is at stake.
The Dartmouth reports that the NH College Democrats, the College Republicans and the College Libertarians are joining forces to oppose the bill, sponsored by Rep Gregory Sorg (R-Easton).
They are going to mount a petition drive as well as look into the effects of the legislation on wider voting trends in New Hampshire.
College Republican President Richard Sunderland III '11 said the legislation suggests a "generational gap" where people "assume that college students are more liberal."
Speaker Bill O'Brien said as much when he addressed the Rochester chapter of the 912 Coalition, a group introduced by television personality Glenn Beck on March 13, 2009. From the Union Leader, January 21, 2011:
He said students in college towns register to vote on Election Day "and are basically doing what I did when I was a kid and foolish, voting as a liberal.
"That's what kids do," he said. "They don't have life experience and they just vote their feelings. And they've taken away the town's ability to govern themselves. It's not fair."
Ostensibly, the bill is to stop "voter fraud", although the above quote from O'Brien belies the real reason. BH's own Paul Twomey is quoted in the article, saying that the NH Secretary of State investigated cases of alleged voter fraud in 2006 and 2008 and found none.
It's good the young people are working together to defeat another piece of bad GOP legislation, .
College Republican President Richard Sunderland III
"It doesn't matter whether we're liberal or conservative - it just isn't right," he said. "Whether every college student is liberal or every college student is conservative, every vote gets to count, and you can't change that."
[I understand that I can claim only one city/town as my domicile at a time. A domicile is that place, more than any other, where I sleep most nights of the year, or to which I intend to return after a temporary absence. By registering or voting today, I acknowledge that I am not registering to vote or voting in any other city/town.]
[, and, if registering on election day, that I have not voted and will not vote at any other polling place this election].
[When municipalities enter information on people who register on election day into the centralized voter registration database, to the extent practical applicants who are registering for the first time in New Hampshire and who also register without presenting an approved photo identification shall be entered first.]
[The supervisors of the checklist are authorized to appoint assistant supervisors of the checklist who shall be assistant election officials and have the powers of supervisors for the purpose of registering voters on election day.]
[If it is necessary because of election day registrations, extra ballots shall be prepared and the number attested to at the end of the voting.]
The repeals of HB 0223:
The following are repealed: I. RSA 654:7-a, relative to election day registration. II. RSA 654:7-b, relative to effect of registration on election day. III. RSA 654:7-c, relative to observation of voter registration. IV. RSA 654:12, V(b), relative to letter of identity verification. V. RSA 659:27, III, relative to challenges at voter registration table. VI. RSA 659:73, I(r), relative to report of registrations.
(crossposted at birch paper, where "life experience" for voting can be gained in a few short years.)
The scene: the corporate boardroom of Rand Motorcars. A group of white men in suits is seated at the table. A graph on a chart in the front of the room is labeled "Sales." It shows a decline over ten fiscal quarters, with a sudden uptick for the most recent.
The Chairman speaks.
Gentlemen, the data is conclusive. The public doesn't like our cars as much as their grandparents did. They are buying from our competitors. When people first get their license and can scrape together enough for their first car, they don't get a Rand.
We had a surprisingly good quarter, and frankly that's the only reason this Board and this executive team have any say in matters. But the long-term trends are not good for us.
The focus groups tell us: we are losing ground with the young, with women, with minorities, with gay people. (Don't giggle, Perkins: they buy a lot of cars.) We still get top sales among older white males - especially with the Oldsmobile gone. That isn't enough! How can we succeed in the coming decades?
I have been glancing at The Constitutional History of New Hampshire by Susan E. Marshall, particularly the section on voting rights. She mentions how over the last half of the 20th century the state Constitution was amended with respect to voting rights, including eliminating literacy requriements, permitting voting by people who did not pay taxes, lowering the voting age, allowing absentee voting, women's sufferage (it was not until 1958 that language restriciting voting for senators to men was repealed), and most recently requiring easily accessible polling places for the disabled.
This pattern of expanding the right to vote, and making it easier to vote, is about to be broken. There are bill titles for legislation that will require "offiical" photo id in order to vote, tying voting eligibililty to car registration and drivers licenses, and something on same day voter registration which I can't decipher yet.
There have been a series of postings on DailyKos about this over the past couple of weeks. But until now the sources they used were suspect (IMHO): the Politico and Mark Halperin. Today there is an article from the Daily Iowan that quotes Senator Dodd as saying:
"If you're from Hartford, Conn., and you're going to school at the University of Iowa, and you're paying out-of-state tuition, you're [unfairly] casting yourself as an Iowan."
This is disgraceful, if accurate.
UPDATE: In the comments Matt Browner-Hamlin reports that the campaign has since disavowed this language and supports the right of all college students enrolled in Iowa to participate in the caucus.
As reported on TPMmuckraker, Sen. Barack Obama sent a letter to to Acting Attorney General Peter D. Keisler calling on him to immediately replace John Tanner, the chief of the voting rights section of the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice, for offensive and erroneous comments he made about minorities.
As Paul Kiel notes, "This is second time this month that Obama has come out hard against a controversial figure from the Civil Rights Division. Earlier, he joined with Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) in blocking the nomination of Hans von Spakovsky to the Federal Election Commission."
Earlier this week, Sen. Obama called on Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey to address how he would reverse the Bush Administration's failure to enforce civil rights, for example, in the cases of the Jena 6 and the Georgia voter photo identification requirement.
The full text of Sen. Obama's letter after the jump...
Update: Both bills passed the Senate 14-10. Now, its up to John Lynch. (end update)
A few months ago I wrote a diary talking about some legislation this session dealing with voting rights in New Hampshire.
Last Year the NH Legislature passed a bill, HB 1556, that would have created a relationship between claiming domicile in NH for voting purposes, and New Hampshire's motor vehicle laws. If Governor Lynch had not vetoed this legislation, any College Student who registered to vote and didn't reregister their car in NH and get a NH Drivers License within 60 days would have been guilty of perjury, and subject to jail time.
Well, things couldn't be more different with our newly blue legislature:
Enter Freshman State Representative David Pierce. He's proposing two bills that would make it clear on voter registration forms what the Secretary of State already says is true: anyone who lives in New Hampshire most of the time may claim domicile here for purposes of voting. HB 132 makes it clear "A person's claim of domicile for voting purposes shall not be conclusive of the person's residence for any other legal purpose." HB 133 removes the misleading language from the voter registration forms that can be used to intimidate eligible voters.
I'm happy to report that both HB 132 and HB 133 passed the House. They were also Voted `Ought to Pass' in the Senate Election Laws and Internal Affairs Committee, and will come to a floor vote on Wednesday.
I spoke with Rep. Pierce again, and he thinks it is likely that both bills will pass the Senate. The Governor vetoed HB 1556 last year, so it is likely that he will sign Rep. Pierce's legislation. Given recent events, however, you can never be too sure. Why don't you email him and ask him to support the bills.
"The right to vote is a fundamental right. The government should not be trying to find ways to make it more difficult to vote, we should be trying to make it easier." Rep. David Pierce, D-Hanover
The right to vote is the most important right in a Democracy; the right to a say in your own governance. Throughout American History there have been changes in exactly who is allowed to vote, but always in the direction of giving more people a say in our governance.
Recently, however, there has been a disturbing trend in making it more difficult to vote. Some states are requiring new identification requirements that complicate the process of registering, while many candidates have included voter suppression tactics as a part of their campaign. New Hampshire has not been immune from this trend, and I'm not referring to our ex-congressman Charlie Bass.
