HR 25 - AS INTRODUCED
2024 SESSION
24-2451
08/10
HOUSE RESOLUTION 25
SPONSORS: Rep. Panek, Hills. 1; Rep. McCarter, Belk. 8; Rep. Drago, Rock. 4; Rep. Potenza, Straf. 19; Rep. Tenczar, Hills. 1; Rep. Seidel, Hills. 29; Rep. Gerhard, Merr. 25; Rep. K. Perez, Rock. 16; Rep. Sellers, Graf. 18; Rep. Belcher, Carr. 4
COMMITTEE: Legislative Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANALYSIS
This house resolution resolves to return to the historical intent of the express trust indenture, the New Hampshire Constitution, specifically Part 1, Article 11 and Part 2, Article 32.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
24-2451
08/10
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Twenty Four
Whereas, the New Hampshire Constitution is an express trust instrument; and
Whereas, in the express trust, only what is expressly written in part II “form of government,” is granted authority for government; and
Whereas, what is not expressly written grant to government, is expressly forbidden by way of omission; otherwise there is no limit to what persons in government can add into the contract without due process; and
Whereas, Maxim of Law 52i states: “That which is granted or reserved in a certain specified form must be taken as it is granted, and will not be permitted to be made the subject of any adjustment or compensation on the part of the grantee." Ex Parte Miller, 2 Hill (NY) 423; Bacon, Max. 26, reg.4; and
Whereas, the founding fathers of New Hampshire, expressly wrote in the New Hampshire Constitution Part 1 Article 10, that “Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men" and Part 1 Article 11 expressly guarantees New Hampshire inhabitants an equal right to vote in any election; by extension, an absentee class of voters is forbidden from having different witnessing standards when obtaining, casting, and having any vote “received” by a moderator; and
Whereas, the founding fathers of New Hampshire, expressly wrote in the New Hampshire Constitution Part 1 Article 11, that qualified absentee voters are inhabitants “...who are absent from the city or town of which they are inhabitants, or who by reason of physical disability are unable to vote in person;” by extension there exists no authority on the part of the grantees to authorize any qualified inhabitant to obtain nor cast an absentee ballot for religious, employment or weather related reasons where express written authority to do so is not granted outside of a constitutional amendment by way of Part 2 Article 100; and
Whereas, there exists no authority on the part of the grantees to make addition of electronic voting machines where express written authority to do so is not granted outside of a constitutional amendment by way of Part 2 Article 100; and
Whereas, in law, 2 or more eyewitnesses establish a fact; and
Whereas, the founding fathers of New Hampshire, expressly wrote in New Hampshire Constitution Part 2 Article 32, showing a minimum of 3 human beings (clerk, selectmen, moderator) would be present during their sorting and counting of ballots, this automatically provided three or more human eyewitnesses who could be called to the witness stand, placed under penalty of perjury and compelled to testify to what they witnessed with their own eyes if there were to be a challenge to the vote count; and
Whereas, electronic counting machines by necessity, interrupt and make impossible, for there to be the human eyewitnesses who can testify under penalty of perjury, to what happened with the ballots during the entire course of the proceedings which they were prescribed by Part 2 Article 32 to supervise with their own human eyes; and
Whereas, the only lawful way to amend New Hampshire Constitution, Part 2 Article 32 and Part 1 Article 11, would have been by way of constitutional due process found in Part 2 Article 100, the proposed amendment appearing on a statewide ballot and receiving three-fifths of the vote of the people in order to become binding; and
Whereas, the founding fathers of New Hampshire, expressly wrote in the New Hampshire Constitution Part 2 Article 32, that “ a moderator, who shall, in the presence of the selectmen (whose duty it shall be to attend) in open meeting, receive the votes” and no practice exists for selectmen to be present exists during the acquisition of an absentee ballot (as exists with a ballot clerk for non-absentee voters) through execution of a lawful affidavit; and
Whereas, the constitutional due process for amending Part 1 Article 11 and Part 2 Article 32 was not followed; and
Whereas, Maxim of Law 46d states “Where the law prescribes a form, the nonobservance of it is fatal to the proceedings and the whole becomes a nullity.” Best, Ev. Introd. S. 59; and
Whereas, the maxims of law state that not following that form, automatically produces a null result; and
Whereas, a null result in law is not certifiable. Maxims 46c “Where form is not observed, a nullity is inferred or follows.” 12 Coke, 7; and
Whereas, there has been an unconstitutional expansion of the listed reasons accepted to apply for an absentee ballot to include many categories not expressly granted in the original law; and
Whereas, the people of New Hampshire are being trespassed in irreparable fashion by the failure to follow form of law; now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives:
That the general court,
I. Intends to heed the “in personam” jurisdiction which the people have over us by our assent to accept the trust as seen in New Hampshire Constitution Part 2 Art 84.
II. Intends to be under the direct control of the people, as their sworn Agents as seen in Part 1 Article 8, in compliance with the Express Trust Indenture Terms of Contract.
III. Intends to take the instructions of the people as is required by New Hampshire Constitution Part 1 Article 32.
IV. Intends to submit to the people’s lawful demand to observe New Hampshire Part 1 Article 38 “exact and constant observance of the laws…”
V. Intends to require equivalent rigor for witnessing standards submitting to the peoples’ demand for equal voting rights, a common benefit from elections, and no unequal classes of qualified voters who are similarly situated inhabitants of New Hampshire by ensuring that:
(a) All absentee ballots are marked in the presence of an official who is authorized by law to administer an oath, and no other person.
(b) All absentee voters deliver an unmarked ballot to the official for examination, who shall satisfy himself that the ballot is unmarked and that the voter did not allow said official to see how he or she marks it.
(c) Said official has no communication with the absentee voter, nor he or she with said official, as to how they are to vote.
(d) After marking the ballot, the absentee voter shall enclose and seal the same in the envelope provided for.
(e) The absentee voter shall then execute in witness to the official an affidavit on the ballot envelope attesting to the above and shall enclose and seal the envelope containing the ballot in the envelope.
(f) An equivalent standard for receiving absentee ballots “in the presence of the selectmen” under Part 2 Article 32 is implemented by requiring that selectmen demonstrate constructive presence and directly supervise the confirmation of the existence of a notary certification on all absentee ballot envelopes;
VI. Intends to return to exact compliance with the plain language in New Hampshire Part 1 Article 11, limiting voters that may cast an absentee ballot as only those “...who are absent from the city or town of which they are inhabitants, or who by reason of physical disability are unable to vote in person;” and
VII. Intends to return to exact compliance with New Hampshire constitution Part 2 Article 32 .
Be it further resolved that the house of representatives hereby declares that due notice shall be provided to every town/unincorporated territory in the state compelling a return to original law as the Supreme Court of the United States has recently set precedent for by their return to the One Step Standard of Review in NY Pistol & Rifle v Bruen case; and
Be it further resolved that such notice shall include instructions to every town to respond by way of sworn affidavits from the town officials responsible to supervise the vote, within 30 days of receiving notice from the general court, attesting to their guarantee to remove electronic voting machines in order to be in compliance with Part 2 Article 32, to properly inspect sworn affidavits of absentee mail in ballots to ensure an equal vote as guaranteed by Part 1 Article 10 and 11, and only accept absentee ballots from the voters meeting the original qualifications of an absentee voter found in Part 1 Article 11 of New Hampshire Constitution.; and
Be it further resolved that such notice will declare, that effective immediately, the secretary of state will no longer be authorized to accept the vote tally from any town that has not responded in timely fashion with its sworn affidavits attesting to their guarantee to remove and comply with above stipulations.
Be it further resolved that such notice will declare that only towns properly certifying that no voting machines were used, and that absentee ballots were properly inspected for properly sworn affidavits of said absentee voters, and no absentee ballots were accepted from any one of the people not meeting the narrow original qualifications found in the original law, will have their votes accepted to the statewide tally for certification.