"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
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..
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.
Good grief!
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?
Apply background checks for gun purchases to voting
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.
