re: Remember that whole thing about states have authority over elections and ID requirements?

While you are peacocking, re-read the title of my post....

Okay. Now that you've done that, re-read YOUR posts.

What have we learned?

My statement is that a federal judge has ruled a state CANNOT decide its own ID requirements for voting.

Your response confirmed that a federal judge has ruled a state CANNOT decide its own ID requirements for voting.

But, somehow YOU are right... "again."

What’s good about all these leftist judges is that certain issues have been litigated that should have been a long time ago.

quote:

---

I clarified the scope of the misleading, general framing.

---

Lololololololol

You are a clown. Seriously.

quote:

---

But, somehow YOU are right... "again."

---

You posted

quote:

---

Funny...

ACLU seems to disagree.

VICTORY: Court Declares NH Anti-Voter Law Unconstitutional - ACLU of New Hampshire LINK

Also, here's another "news story" about it:

Ahead of midterms, federal court strikes down NH proof-of-citizenship voter registration law • New Hampshire Bulletin LINK

And another...

Federal judge strikes down N.H. voter ID law; repeal of affidavits ruled unconstitutional - Concord Monitor LINK

All of them seem to have a different perspective to yours.

---

You didn't read an went for a "gotcha" and it backfired.

Then you pivoted and re-framed your comments to the scope I already provided, and you're pretending now that's been your stance all along. And now I'm pointing out what you did.

quote:

---

Lololololololol

You are a clown. Seriously.

---

Go re-read my post again.

That is literally what I did.

Why are you dismissing this very important clarification of OP?

quote:

---

Under the new legal landscape, any New Hampshire voter who is not already on the state’s voter rolls — either because they have never before voted in the state or because they did not vote in the last five years and were removed — must provide hard documentation.

To prove their identity, a voter must have a photo driver’s license or photo ID issued by any state or the federal government; a passport; an armed services ID; or any evidence that makes it “more likely than not” that they are who they say they are, including an in-person verification by an election official who knows them.

To prove their age — and that they are at least 18 years old as of Election Day — a voter can use any of those same documents.

To prove their domicile and demonstrate that they live in the precinct in which they are voting, a voter must first attempt to provide one of four documents: a New Hampshire driver’s license or non-driver ID card; a New Hampshire vehicle registration; a U.S. government photo ID that has their current New Hampshire address; or a government-issued check, benefit statement, or tax document with their current address.

If a voter does not have any of those documents, they may attest, under penalty of voter fraud, that they do not possess them. After doing that, they may provide any document from a broader list, including a utility bill, a lease or rental agreement, evidence of a property purchase, a school enrollment form, and U.S. Postal Service records. Any voter whose name is not on their home’s utility bill or lease — such as a roommate or a person living with their parents or other family members — can provide a written statement by a co-inhabitant, landlord, or manager affirming that that voter lives there, signed under penalty of perjury.

Those documentary requirements are absolute, and failure to follow them could result in a prospective voter being denied voter registration.

---

quote:

---

A new state law also allows local election officials with an internet connection to check a database maintained by the Secretary of State’s Office that can verify a voter’s citizenship if they were born in New Hampshire and have a state birth certificate, or if they obtained a REAL ID driver’s license in New Hampshire, which requires proof of U.S. citizenship.

---

Why did you then double down and post as if the entire law was ruled unconstitutional?

Again, here is your post (not mine)

quote:

---

Funny...

ACLU seems to disagree.

VICTORY: Court Declares NH Anti-Voter Law Unconstitutional - ACLU of New Hampshire LINK

Also, here's another "news story" about it:

Ahead of midterms, federal court strikes down NH proof-of-citizenship voter registration law • New Hampshire Bulletin LINK

And another...

Federal judge strikes down N.H. voter ID law; repeal of affidavits ruled unconstitutional - Concord Monitor LINK

All of them seem to have a different perspective to yours.

---

quote:

---

You didn't read an went for a "gotcha" and it backfired.

Then you pivoted and re-framed your comments to the scope I already provided, and you're pretending now that's been your stance all along. And now I'm pointing out what you did

---

I didn't reframe shite. My assertion is in the title of the post. Every source confirmed/supported my statement.

I never claimed nor asserted the entirety of the law was invalidated.

All of your citations and preening did nothing but confirm the statement in the OP.

quote:

---

The “radical right” has enough judicial power in Thomas and Alito…

---

More nonsensical wishcasting from rebuplican arse lickers who can’t stand to be reminded that big daddy Donny was thoroughly trounced in a completely legitimate election.

Hey bitch. Glad you’re checking in this morning.

You are too stupid to be embarrassed.

but you have a couple of your windup organ grinder monkeys to back you up!