Video: How easy is it for non-residents to vote in New Hampshire?

posted at 7:21 pm on February 12, 2016 by Ed Morrissey

Pretty easy, as it turns out, and made even easier by Bernie Sanders campaign staffers. Four years after Project Veritas Action first exposed the ease by which voter fraud occurs and New Hampshire attempted to toughen its laws, James O’Keefe and his team returned to “stress test” the system. They didn’t actually cast votes, which would have been a crime, but they clearly had the opportunities to do so:

Poll worker, Nashua, New Hampshire: So they will allow you to sign an affidavit saying that you live in the state of New Hampshire.

Journalist:  But, I’m not living here, I am just trying to vote here.

Poll worker:  Do you have an intention of living here indefinitely?

Journalist: No not indefinitely.

Poll 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, because it sounds like it’s true.

PVA:  Ok, yeah.  Not 100% true though.

Poll worker: Right, but you’re here indefinitely, and you’re staying at your friend’s house, and you’ll be about to vote.  Otherwise, I don’t know.

It wasn’t just the poll workers, either. The Sanders campaign took a rather broad approach to their get-out-the-vote mandate:

Mariel Brown-Fallon, Bernie Sanders Field Organizer:  Ummm…could you say you’re staying at 345 Cilley Road?

Journalist:  Could we?

Field Organizer:  Yeah.

Journalist:  That’s, that’s this address.

Field Organizer:  Yeah.

PVA’s rating of New Hampshire’s voter-ID laws: A for intent, D for effort.

“While we’d like to applaud some legislators for trying to strengthen New Hampshire’s voter ID laws, obviously the end result wasn’t good enough,” said Project Veritas Action President James O’Keefe. “Banks, airlines, and even corner grocery stores have long figured out how to quickly and easily confirm identity with photo IDs. Perhaps government is incredibly incompetent, alternately the intent is far more nefarious.”

John Fund notes that PVA isn’t the only one appalled by the outcome:

GOP state representative Bill O’Brien, who was the speaker of New Hampshire’s house when the voter-ID bill passed in 2012, is appalled by just how porous its enforcement was in this year’s primary. “It’s an embarrassment this should happen in a state that is accorded the right to the first primary,” he told me. “More of this and people from outside the state will start to question that status, which would be very sad.”

O’Brien points out that the state constitution clearly says that the right to vote in New Hampshire is connected to someone’s actually living in the state. “But the local courts have basically reinterpreted that to mean you have a state of mind that you intend to live in New Hampshire and that should be enough to allow you to vote.” Even so, he says that some of the activities seen in O’Keefe’s video are clearly fraudulent. “We once had 50 voters use the administrative office of a local college as their legal address in New Hampshire,” he recounted. “They were clearly out-of-state campaign workers voting.”

The whole point of a primary is to get the sense of that state’s citizens. If a system doesn’t protect the integrity of that distinction, then why bother to have state-by-state primaries at all?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

I get the feeling if they could Democrats would skip the whole voting thing and go straight for the Dictating. Voting just seems like a hassle to them.

Pegcity on February 12, 2016 at 7:25 PM

Can we at least make sure they are American citizens?

rbj on February 12, 2016 at 7:32 PM

I get that it’s easy to commit voter fraud, but who’s actually going to risk a felony (I assume it’s a felony) to vote in a primary.

themuppet on February 12, 2016 at 7:33 PM

You’re a little late on this Ed. I mentioned this a week ago. BTW out of state college students can also vote in NH.

http://www.unh.edu/main/unh-votes

diogenes on February 12, 2016 at 7:34 PM

why bother to have state-by-state primaries at all?

Ad money.

BobMbx on February 12, 2016 at 7:36 PM

I get that it’s easy to commit voter fraud, but who’s actually going to risk a felony (I assume it’s a felony) to vote in a primary.

themuppet on February 12, 2016 at 7:33 PM

Primaries are political party functions, nothing federal about them.

BobMbx on February 12, 2016 at 7:36 PM

To bad he didn’t get an illegal to try, icing on the cake.

Cindy Munford on February 12, 2016 at 7:42 PM

I wonder if I could have requested an absentee ballot from California?

malclave on February 12, 2016 at 7:46 PM

Being first is more important than having integrity.

Oxymoron on February 12, 2016 at 7:52 PM

Primaries are political party functions, nothing federal about them.

BobMbx on February 12, 2016 at 7:36 PM

Not entirely true. Here in California, we have a law which says that the top two vote-getters for a given office during the primary are the only ones on the ballot in the general election. That means that primaries act only as winnows for the general election, and party plays no real role.

Theoretically (ok, not so theoretically), only Democrats might appear on the general ballot for a given office. The only offices excluded from the law are the President of the United States and the general committees of each party. That means that here, in California, we will, for the forseeable future, be seeing only Democratic candidates for Senator on the general ballot.

unclesmrgol on February 12, 2016 at 7:54 PM

The illegals, the dead, the dogs, repeatedly.

Yet, the lefties “no problem worth talking about”.

Rihgties? What have they done about it?

Schadenfreude on February 12, 2016 at 7:55 PM

“Voter fraud??? Thats just a vast right wing conspiracy. It never happens.”

Dem/Lib/commie

Mimzey on February 12, 2016 at 8:08 PM

Theoretically (ok, not so theoretically), only Democrats might appear on the general ballot for a given office.

unclesmrgol on February 12, 2016 at 7:54 PM

I had the option of two Democrats for Congress… there have been times before when there was no Republican or Libertarian on the ballot, but now I can’t even cast a write-in protest vote.

malclave on February 12, 2016 at 8:50 PM

Theoretically (ok, not so theoretically), only Democrats might appear on the general ballot for a given office. The only offices excluded from the law are the President of the United States and the general committees of each party. That means that here, in California, we will, for the forseeable future, be seeing only Democratic candidates for Senator on the general ballot.

unclesmrgol on February 12, 2016 at 7:54 PM

That would only be if the Democrats got over two thirds of the vote in the primary. If that’s the case, there was never any point in voting for a Republican in the first place, and you should be thankful you get some say in which Democrat is representing you instead of none. Now, this may mean that the parties should have a pre-primary contest to see who gets the official party backing in the primary, but it isn’t like Republicans are being cheated out of a seat in the cases where the general election is between two Democrats.

Count to 10 on February 12, 2016 at 9:06 PM

Can we at least make sure they are American citizens?

rbj on February 12, 2016 at 7:32 PM

No- That would be racist.

redridinghood on February 12, 2016 at 9:25 PM

I get the feeling if they could Democrats would skip the whole voting thing and go straight for the Dictating. Voting just seems like a hassle to them.

Pegcity on February 12, 2016 at 7:25 PM

Or they could flip a coin until they get the result they want.

redridinghood on February 12, 2016 at 9:27 PM

I live in NH and voted in the primary. When it was my turn to receive a ballot the woman asked my name and after she checked me off, handed me a ballot. I asked, don’t you want to see my ID? She said, Oh yeah, I keep forgetting about that and some people yell at me when I ask.
I told her I wouldn’t yell at her.

Patrap on February 12, 2016 at 9:45 PM

I just want to do her. Isn’t that enough?

What is it with you puritanical prycks?

WryTrvllr on February 13, 2016 at 12:01 AM

oops. wrong threads.

WryTrvllr on February 13, 2016 at 12:01 AM

The whole point of a primary is to get the sense of that state’s citizens. If a system doesn’t protect the integrity of that distinction, then why bother to have state-by-state primaries at all?

Actually that’s a good question. Why bother with electors either.

There is an excellent answer that also explains why we have 3-year-11-month campaigns:

Ad money.

BobMbx on February 12, 2016 at 7:36 PM

And consultant fees, and pollster charges, and the entire apparatus that runs election campaigns now.
Not to mention siphoning from PACs and campaign coffers.

AesopFan on February 13, 2016 at 12:32 AM

I get the feeling if they could Democrats would skip the whole voting thing and go straight for the Dictating. Voting just seems like a hassle to them.

Pegcity on February 12, 2016 at 7:25 PM

Or they could flip a coin until they get the result they want.

redridinghood on February 12, 2016 at 9:27 PM

Don’t need coins; they have SuperDelegates.

AesopFan on February 13, 2016 at 12:33 AM

oops. wrong threads.

WryTrvllr on February 13, 2016 at 12:01 AM

There you go with that cross-over voting again.

AesopFan on February 13, 2016 at 12:33 AM

As a New Hampshire resident I am livid over same day registration and “resident” definitions.
Our deployed military does NOT get the same chance to vote here in New Hampshire. As it currently stands, there is zero access to online voting. New Hampshire is perfectly content to be a dinosaur state in that aspect, despite being one of the most computer tech savvy states in the union. That’s what I was told…it’s fine just the way it is.
The only way a deployed service person can vote is to have their town/city clerk mail them a ballot. The clerk can only send it out 30 days before the election and the ballot must be received by 5 PM the day of the election.
Many of our deployed military easily have a minimum 4-6 week turnaround time due to the remoteness of many fobs…I know one Marine who has not been able to vote in 3 of 4 New Hampshire election cycles due to being deployed at remote camps, but here, in the next town over, is the campus of the University of NH where every “resident” on campus gets to vote in my state, even without any proof of residency or a photo ID, just fill out an affidavit that you are who you say you are….and then maybe vote in their home state, too?

NHElle on February 13, 2016 at 7:12 AM

And Bernie is worried about Big Money Wall Street Types buying elections?

leftamark on February 13, 2016 at 8:15 AM

Don’t need coins legal voters; they have SuperDelegates.

AesopFan on February 13, 2016 at 12:33 AM

leftamark on February 13, 2016 at 8:25 AM

people from outside the state will start to question that status

Actually, a great many of us already question it. And not because of voter fraud, but because we wonder why in the world you should have any sway over the rest of the campaigns, at all. In many ways you’re outliers with an outsized sense of your own importance.

unclesmrgol on February 12, 2016 at 7:54 PM

Seems that should be a matter for the federal gov’t to step in, then. Since the Constitution guarantees a republican form of gov’t to the states. That seems to violate that idea.

NHElle on February 13, 2016 at 7:12 AM

Your friend should get those students to act as his (and other deployed military) proxy. That would turn the system on its head.

GWB on February 13, 2016 at 8:52 AM

Again and still: One cannot spell ‘voter fraud’ without ‘democrat.’

locomotivebreath1901 on February 13, 2016 at 9:01 AM

So when is O’Keefe going to be indicted by a Grand Jury, like the P.P. filmers in Texas?

I wish one Republican would hit back when advocating Voter ID, and accused of Voter suppression, to respond, “Well if having ID means I’m for suppression, you must be for voter fraud… like the Democrats”

LouisianaLightning on February 13, 2016 at 12:54 PM

Does it mean that those 10,000 ground apparatiks of Ted Cruz in IA who must have come from different states could also have gone to NH and voted for him?

That’s TRUE cheating! LOLOL!

Subtract 10,000 from Ted Cruz’s votes in NH!

TheAlamos on February 13, 2016 at 12:56 PM

“It doesn’t matter who casts the votes; it only matters who counts the votes”.
~ Josef Stalin

Galtian on February 13, 2016 at 1:06 PM

This is incredible about what’s going on in NH. Yet I am not surprised. Not at all.

My home state Colorado, which is another swing state, also has very flawed voting laws. Election integrity is a very important and complex issue. Hence, my friends, who have devoted many years defending election integrity, are trying to find some additional help.

As far as I know, they have been trying to reach out to Mr. John Fund and Mr. Hans spakovsky at the Heritage Foundation. There is some critical information that my activist friends would like to share with those leading legal experts in the field in person.

Here is their contact information via group website:

Colorado Voter Group
http://www.ColoradoVoterGroup.org
2867 Tincup Circle
Boulder, CO 80305

[email protected]
303-499-9527
 
Colorado Voter Group BLOG
http://www.coloradovotergroup.blogspot.com/
 

sohumm on February 13, 2016 at 3:19 PM

Voting fraud in early voting in Tennessee.

Schadenfreude on February 13, 2016 at 3:31 PM

I hate your articles Ed, all you seem to do is cut and paste and write very little content of your own.

JLPicard on February 14, 2016 at 1:56 PM