Anons on qresearch posted article on NH judge blocking residency requirements (article below) that are similar to the federal requirements for mail-in registration first time voters under the HAVA of 2002 codified as 42 USC Sec 15483.
https://8ch.net/qresearch/res/3569605.html#q3570173
Judge bars New Hampshire proof of residency requirement for new voters
A New Hampshire judge on Monday put on hold a law requiring some voters to present proof of residency when they register, saying it would lengthen lines at polling places and make it difficult for students, disabled voters and others to cast ballots.
The temporary injunction against the Republican-backed law comes two weeks before U.S. Congressional elections that will determine whether opposition Democrats or U.S. President Donald Trump’s Republicans retain full control of the federal government’s legislative branch. The measure, which passed largely along party lines and went into effect last year, required those seeking to register within 30 days of an election to present documents proving that they live in the area where they intend to vote. Without such proof, they must agree to either send it in within 10 days or the state will seek to verify their domicile. The law does not require proof of address when voting. “Where the law threatens to disenfranchise an individual’s right to vote, the only viable remedy is to enjoin its enforcement,” Presiding Justice Kenneth C. Brown wrote in his decision for the Hillsborough Superior Court Northern District in Manchester. He added that the registration form is too complicated for many people to understand.
The legislation is the subject of a lawsuit filed by League of Women Voters of New Hampshire and other groups, who said it would disenfranchise numerous groups including students, the disabled and homeless voters. The measure will be put on hold while the merits of the case are decided. New Hampshire Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter, a Democrat, welcomed the ruling. “This law undermines our state’s reputation for holding free and fair elections, and it hurts our democracy,” she said in a statement. New Hampshire Associate Attorney General Anne Edwards said through a spokeswoman on Monday that the state was reviewing the court order and would soon communicate its next steps. She did not say whether that would include appealing the injunction.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-census/u-s-top-court-blocks-questioning-of-ross-in-census-suit-idUSKCN1MX017?il=0
42 USC Chapter 146 Election Administration Improvement
§15483. Computerized statewide voter registration list requirements and requirements for voters who register by mail
(b) Requirements for voters who register by mail
(1) In general
Notwithstanding section 6(c) of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg–4(c)) and subject to paragraph (3), a State shall, in a uniform and nondiscriminatory manner, require an individual to meet the requirements of paragraph (2) if-
(A) the individual registered to vote in a jurisdiction by mail; and
(B)(i) the individual has not previously voted in an election for Federal office in the State; or
(ii) the individual has not previously voted in such an election in the jurisdiction and the jurisdiction is located in a State that does not have a computerized list that complies with the requirements of subsection (a) of this section.
(2) Requirements
(A) In general
An individual meets the requirements of this paragraph if the individual-
(i) in the case of an individual who votes in person-
(I) presents to the appropriate State or local election official a current and valid photo identification; or
(II) presents to the appropriate State or local election official a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the voter; or
(ii) in the case of an individual who votes by mail, submits with the ballot-
(I) a copy of a current and valid photo identification; or
(II) a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the voter.
https://www.justice.gov/crt/chapter-146-election-administration-improvement
view the rest of the comments →
[–] 14605497? 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
There really is no excuse no to have an ID to vote. there really isn't.
Literally the only valid reason to want to not have ID requirement, is so those who cannot get them can vote. Which is exactly why they are being pushed to be required. Because people who can get ID's, have ID's. You need an ID for a lot of things. Besides, if people who can get them do not have them, they really have no excuse not to. We should not reward those too lazy to get them. They aren't expensive or take long to do.
Opposing voter ID laws may as well be an open admission of, "We don't want these laws because we are planning to cheat and they will get in the way of that."
[–] 14608331? ago
Niggers can always figure out how to get IDs to apply for welfare and travel on airplanes. But, if you mention Voter ID they go nuts and turn it into a race issue.
[–] 14610389? 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
It's actually pretty damn degrading if you think about it. Do they think so little of minorities that they are incapable of getting an ID?
That is literal racism. lol