"Exclusive – Kobach: It Appears That Out-of-State Voters Changed the Outcome of the New Hampshire U.S. Senate Race
by KRIS W. KOBACH7 Sep 2017
For years, the mainstream media has ignored the problem of voter fraud and belittled those of us who are trying to do something about it. And when secretaries of state like me identify cases of fraud, we are told that the number of incidents of voter fraud is too insignificant to matter.
Now, however, facts have come to light that indicate that a pivotal, close election was likely changed through voter fraud on November 8, 2016: New Hampshire’s U.S. Senate Seat, and perhaps also New Hampshire’s four electoral college votes in the presidential election.
New Hampshire is one of fifteen states that allow same-day voter registration. The benefit of same-day registration is that it allows a person who has procrastinated or has forgotten to register to nonetheless cast a ballot on election day. The downside of same-day registration is that it does not allow the state time to assess the eligibility of the voter. A volunteer poll worker simply accepts a modicum of identification and takes the voter at his word that he’s a U.S. citizen resident of the state who is eligible to vote.
New Hampshire is also a battleground state. Unlike neighboring Massachusetts and Vermont, which reliably vote for the Democrat in presidential elections, New Hampshire can swing either way. It has long been reported, anecdotally, that out-of-staters take advantage of New Hampshire’s same-day registration and head to the Granite State to cast fraudulent votes.
Now there’s proof.
According to statistics released by the Speaker of the New Hampshire House of Representatives, on the date of the general election in November 2016, there were 6,540 same-day registrants who registered to vote in New Hampshire using an out-of-state driver’s license to prove their identity. In and of itself, that doesn’t prove that any fraud occurred – theoretically, each of those individuals could have been someone who recently moved to the State and had not yet had time to get a New Hampshire driver’s license. According to New Hampshire law, a new resident has 60 days to obtain a New Hampshire driver’s license.
So if those 6,540 voters were bona fide New Hampshire residents, they would get their driver’s license no later than January 7, 2017. However, the numbers tell a very different story. It turns out that, as of August 30, 2017 – nearly ten months after the election – only 1,014 of the 6,540 same-day registrants who registered with an out-of-state license had obtained a New Hampshire driver’s license. The other 5,526 individuals never obtained a New Hampshire driver’s license. And, of those 5,526, only 213 registered a vehicle in New Hampshire.
So 5,313 of those voters neither obtained a New Hampshire driver’s license nor registered a vehicle in New Hampshire. They have not followed the legal requirements for residents regarding driver’s licenses, and it appears that they are not actually residing in New Hampshire. It seems that they never were bona fide residents of the State.
5,513 is a big number – more than enough to swing two very important elections. The closest major election was the contest between incumbent Republican U.S. Senator Kelly Ayotte and challenger Maggie Hassan (D). Hassan won the election by a razor-thin margin of 1,017 votes. Those 5,313 fraudulent votes were more than enough to swing the election. If 59.2 percent or more of them went for Hassan, then the election was stolen through voter fraud. That’s likely, since the surrounding states are Democrat strongholds.
It’s also possible that New Hampshire’s four electoral college votes were swung to Hillary Clinton through illegal voting by nonresidents. Clinton won New Hampshire by only 2,732 votes. If 74.8 percent of the 5,513 fraudulent votes were cast for Clinton, then the presidential election in New Hampshire was tipped as well.
If the presidential contest had been closer and had come down to a margin of three or four electoral college votes, then this voter fraud might have had extraordinary consequences. Regardless, in the Senate contest, it is highly likely that voting by nonresidents changed the result.
And that is already having consequences for the nation. If the 52-48 Republican-Democrat balance in the Senate were 53-47, it could change the balance in any number of votes – not the least of which would be the effort to repeal Obamacare.
But the mainstream media will tell us, “Move along, there’s nothing to see here.” Voter fraud virtually never occurs."
Kris W. Kobach is the elected Secretary of State of Kansas. An expert in immigration law and policy, he coauthored the Arizona SB-1070 immigration law and represented in federal court the 10 ICE agents who sued to stop Obama’s 2012 executive amnesty. In 2017 President Trump named him Vice Chairman of the Presidential Commission on Election Integrity. He is currently a candidate for governor of Kansas. His website is kriskobach.com.
Wouldn't surprise me if there is fraud, look at the MA/NH border town results, they skew the whole state, but these numbers need to be looked at correctly
Who knew? I spoke of this phenomenon during both of the last two election cycles. It is a well known occurence in NH. People come in BUSES to the hotels, vote the next day, and clear town right after.
Also, buses show up at polls filled with college kids who vote and reboard to be shuttled to the next town to vote multiple times.
It doesnt take much Soros money to sway an election in NH and we certainly have the criminals in official places to do so.
I have maintained for years that NH has been stolen and I am not the least bit surprised to see the actual numbers.
I am hopeful that Trump's election fraud commission will ferret out this kind of cheating.
As this illustrates, cheating doesnt have to be very large to change many things, just strategic.
We, the citizens of NH, got cheated once again.
So I'm sure most of those numbers are from college students. UNH, Keene state, Plymouth state... that's over 20,000 people right there..
The Presidential Commission on Election Integrity is meeting Tuesday in New Hampshire and may eventually provide an answer.
A debate is raging in the state, home of the first presidential primary, about whether state election laws were violated last November by out-of-state Democrats who entered New Hampshire and took advantage of the same-day voter registration law to falsely claim they were New Hampshire residents.
The election featured a photo-finish race for president – Hillary Clinton won by 2,467 votes – and in the race for the U.S. Senate. Democrat Maggie Hassan narrowly defeated incumbent GOP Sen. Kelly Ayotte by only 1,017 votes.
Trump won the Electoral College comfortably, but he could easily have been in a position where the Granite State’s four electoral votes would have determined the outcome of the presidential race.
Since all of New Hampshire’s neighboring states are Democratic, it’s likely that if any of their residents crossed into New Hampshire to use the same-day voter registration law to cast ballots most of these people voted Democratic. That could have wound up costing Ayotte and possibly Trump a victory in New Hampshire.
Should that have happened, the implications are huge. Trump won the Electoral College comfortably, but he could easily have been in a position where the Granite State’s four electoral votes would have determined the outcome of the presidential race.
As for Ayotte, Republicans in the Senate failed to pass a “repeal and replace” bill for ObamaCare by only a single vote. If Ayotte had been in the Senate, she would have provided that missing vote and ObamaCare would have been repealed. Lawmakers would now be in the middle of a rousing debate over how to replace ObamaCare.
In the 15 states that have same-day voter registration, the vast majority of voters who use the law are recent arrivals who’ve moved from other states. But apparently not in New Hampshire.
The vast majority of the 6,240 voters in New Hampshire who registered on the same day they cast ballots – 70 percent – used out-of-state identification to prove their identities, according to the Public Interest Legal Foundation. That’s something that people who have just moved into the state can do, prior to obtaining New Hampshire ID.
Some of the out-of-state ID holders were no doubt college students using ID from their home states, even though state law requires they get a New Hampshire ID within 30 days of moving into the state to be considered a true resident.
But only about 7 percent of those same-day registrants went on to obtain New Hampshire driver’s licenses and only 3 percent have since registered vehicles in New Hampshire – a state with very little public transportation. This raises serious questions about whether many of the people who took advantage of same-day registration to vote were out-of-state residents voting improperly in the Granite State.
Kris Kobach, the vice chair of the presidential commission and the secretary of state for Kansas, says the anomalies are important because they could have swung both the Senate race that Ayotte narrowly lost and the presidential race the Trump barely lost.
New Hampshire lawmakers have already recognized the problems that same-day registration poses for the integrity of their elections.
Last spring, a bill was signed into law that clearly requires anyone registering to vote less than 30 days before an election take one of more specified steps to make New Hampshire “the one place, more than any other, from which he or she engages in the domestic, social, and civil activities of participating in democratic self-government.” Examples would be changing one’s driver’s license and registering a vehicle in the state.
So in the future, New Hampshire will have some mechanism in place to ensure that only its residents vote, rather than having drive-in partisans and overeager political activists from other states cancel out the ballot of legitimate voters.
John Fund is a columnist for National Review. Follow him on Twitter
UNH alone has a total of 15,351 students, with 53% being non-residents. That means there were more than 8,000 UNH non-resident students who could've voted. Dartmouth College had over 5,000 non-resident students. Keene State had more than 2,700 non-resident students. And, Plymouth State had more than 2,500 non-resident students. Add in the other colleges and universities like Franklin Pierce, Granite State and Colby-Sawyer, and Moons22's estimate of 20,000 non-resident college students is easily surpassed,
For those of you who are just itching to prove voter fraud in New Hampshire, do a little research on where the overwhelming majority of those "6,540 same-day registrants who registered to vote in New Hampshire using an out-of-state driver’s license to prove their identity" actually went to cast their vote. Here's a hint: TOWNS THAT HAVE COLLEGE CAMPUSES. You know... places like Durham, Dover, Portsmouth, Dartmouth, Hanover, Lebanon, Keene, Rindge, Plymouth, Goffstown, Manchester, Henniker and Hooksett. The FACT is, this was looked into back in February. I would think Secretary Kobach would know that. If he didn't, he's not much of an "investigator."
There more than a few key words in Kobach's article I hope you guys will take note of: "likely," "perhaps," "anecdotally," "appears," "seems," "if," and "possible." Now, I'm not a lawyer. But, when someone uses words like that to make their case, it's "probably" a weak case... or just a politically-based press release.
The second issue, and by far the more important is the present voting laws in NH that allow non-residents to vote in elections provided they are "legally domiciled" in NH (college students living in dormitories).
On it's face the law makes no sense, other than to provide influence in one direction; students are not disenfranchised from the voting process by virtue of being in an out-of-state college; they can exercise their voting rights via absentee ballots, a very simple and easy process.
Finally, if the state of NH feels compelled to maintain this flawed system at most it should be allowed only for the POTUS candidates as that elected office represents the entire country; there is no valid reason to allow a non-resident who is "legally domiciled" in a state to cast a vote for a Representative or Senator who by definition represents only their constituents (legal residents).
This is an easy fix and if any state wishes to portray themselves as staunch defenders of the sanctity of the vote, one that is long overdue.
One question, so say the state requires a 30 day residency before being a resident. Are you still a resident of the state you started in?
Spike Bull 's Link
"Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2017/09/popper-give-testimony-presidential-advisory-commission-election-integrity/#ixzz4sUXrDdzM Under Creative Commons License: Attribution Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook
Popper joined Judicial Watch in September 2013 as a senior attorney and as director of Judicial Watch’s Election Integrity Project."
Spike Bull 's Link
By John R. Lott Jr.
Republicans worry about vote fraud. Democrats claim that Republicans are just imagining things. But in testimony Tuesday before the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, I will suggest a simple solution that could make both parties happy: Apply the background check system for gun purchases to voting.
Democrats have long lauded background checks on gun purchases as simple, accurate and in complete harmony with the Second Amendment right to own guns. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has bragged that the checks “make our communities and neighborhoods safer without in any way abridging rights or threatening a legitimate part of the American heritage.”
If Democrats really believe that the National Instant Criminal Background Check System doesn’t interfere “in any way” with people’s constitutional rights to own a gun, doesn't it follow that the same system would not constitute an infringement on people’s right to vote? This would give Republicans a system for stopping vote fraud and Democrats a system that they have already vigorously endorsed.
The NICS system doesn't just determine if potential gun buyers have criminal histories. It also checks whether a person is in this country illegally, has a nonimmigrant visa or has renounced his citizenship. Such people are not allowed to vote. The system doesn’t currently flag people who are on immigrant visas but who could be added to the system.
In 34 states, felons are not able to vote immediately upon release. The background-check system would detect these too.
Of course, Democrats and Republicans will continue to argue over whether illegal voting is a major problem.
Since Democrats believe that the NICS doesn’t in any way interfere with or suppress gun ownership, how could it suppress legal voter registration? Thus, Democrats shouldn't have anything to worry about. If there doesn't turn out to be any vote fraud, Democrats can say that they were proved right.
But it is likely that Democrats will take issue with the NICS once it is applied to something other than gun purchases. NICS requires government-issued photo IDs, and Democrats have vehemently opposed voter ID laws. Moreover, the fees that gun buyers have to pay on private transfers can be quite substantial, ranging from $55 in Oregon to $175 in Washington, D.C., and would be compared to poll taxes. Because of the Constitution’s 24th Amendment, the courts have struck down poll taxes as unconstitutional.
Still, I doubt that Democrats would concede that background check costs discourage gun ownership.
A simple solution is for the costs of the background checks to see if people are eligible to vote could be picked up by the states instead of being charged to people registering to vote. Possibly, once Democrats acknowledge this undue burden, we could talk about the government picking up the costs of background checks on gun purchases too.
Applying the NICS background checks to voting would undoubtedly elicit a long list of other concerns from Democrats about how the system interferes with people’s right to vote. The debate could prove quite embarrassing for Democrats. Will they finally admit to the double standard? They are very concerned about getting poor people’s votes, but they want to make it difficult for poor people to defend themselves.
Love that idea, Anony!