UltraVires, voting issues aside, is it normally the case that a person can plead indigency and get a driver’s permit without paying a fee? Because if New Hampshire is prepared to offer an indigent person a free ID, as Bricker has pointed our, that helps to demonstrate that you’ve made New Hampshire your “principal place” for voting puposes, I don’t see how they’re interfering with your right to vote.
The right to vote doesn’t carry with it a penumbral right to drive, does it? 
To register to vote, you may use a driver’s license issued by any state or the federal government. RSA 659:13.
So where did you get the idea that “They will not accept my driver’s license from MA because NH law requires me to get a NH license to drive in that state if I claim residency there?”
NH law requires you to get an NH license to DRIVE there. Not to VOTE there.
But I think the point of the legislation in question is that, to register to vote in NH, you have to provide evidence that you are a resident of NH. Which another state’s driver’s license would not be.
Right. My response was imprecise. This was the intent.
But since the new law appears to be silent on it, the effect of an out-of-state permit then will likely depend on the facts:
Q: “when did you move here?”
A: “just last week; today was my first day on the job”
Q: “okay, but you’ll probably need to switch your driver permit soon.”
OR:
Q: “When did you move here?”
A: “I think it was two years ago. I’ve never changed my permit.”
Q: "I’m not sure I can accept that you’ve made New Hampshire your ‘permanent place’ ".
No. But to be argumentative for Socrates’ purposes what about this:
Assume the same hypothetical. I have an out of state driver’s license that is valid for three more years. My principle place of residence is now NH, and according to the law I must change it. But I am indigent. I also know that if I get pulled over, the officer knowing that NH is my principle place of residence is negligible. IOW, I could very reasonably get away with driving in NH with my out of state license for three more years.
However, this new law presents me with the choice of driving or giving up my right to vote because to get the free NH ID, I have to invalidate my out of state driver’s license.
So, it’s not a tax in the sense that (as of the date of my becoming a NH resident) voting is free but I must pay for driving, whereas before both voting and driving were free. To get a bit more absurd couldn’t we say that voting is free, but the state charges an “oxygen use inside polling places fee” per minute you are inside? It’s free to vote; we are just charging for the air.
No, all nearly all states (including NH) require new residents to apply for a new driver’s license if they move to the state and drive within the state. For NH, the time allowed to apply for a new license is 60 days.
Most states the time limit is 30 days.
No. But you can register on Election Day, at the polling place, and sign an affidavit that you are a resident without incurring any cost. They even provide a pen, I believe.
I agree, but my point was that an indigent person could get away, as a practical matter, with driving on an out of state license indefinitely.
Only by driving without a valid license.
You could vote without the free ID by signing an affidavit affirming your New Hampshire residency. How is that a “tax?”
I was tempted to ask for a cite, but I found one in my own link from upthread.
First, get off the law. The law is made by white folks for white folks. I could point to many examples in the case law where white folks to enforce white supremacy. This isn’t controversial, just speaking about it is.
Second, it’s a technical poll tax. If I have a driver’s license from the State of New York that I paid $30 for that’s valid from 2018 to 2026, why should I be forced to either relinquish that driver’s license and pay $50 for a whole new one *or *be unable to vote in the election. Again, why should I be forced to pay an additional $50 dollars to be able to vote? I say this with a caveat. If the State does an equivalent exchange between the licenses for free, I withdraw my poll tax comment. It goes from being egregious and racist to being stupid, dumb, and wasteful to the taxpayer.
Lastly, these hoes need to get together and put an amendment that says something like “To prevent an endless patchwork of laws, States must fully recognize the licensures, prescriptions, vocational and didactic degrees and certificates from other States and their public institutions as long as the requirements between the two States are reasonably similar”. What’s next? Will University of Michigan graduates who live in Arizona be forced to exchange their degree with Arizona State University Online in order to get take a job with a college degree?
It’s already been mentioned on this board that there is a belief, promoted by the POTUS, that NH is a hotbed of illegal voting. Investigations have shown that this belief is not based in fact. Nonetheless, this act is part of the populist effort to curb the widespread illegal voting that is not taking place. What is taking place is voting by students domiciled in NH for the school term, who then return to their home states. And there is another lesser known but widely held belief that without the Democratic votes of college students here who actually live elsewhere in the world, this would be a solid Republican state just like God intended.
So voting here will be limited to residents. Students who are domiciled here and want to vote here, will be effectually declaring residency. New residents, by law, must apply for a NH license and vehicle registration within 60 days, and in order for a license to be granted, one must surrender any other IDs and/or licenses to NH so the state can notify the other locales. That’s the gist of it, and obviously more than one statute applies.
In a thread that inveighs about the effects of a new law, in my view, the discussion of the specifics of that law is quite relevant.
I recommend a review of the thread. You’ll see that the white people have permitted voting without the need for any driver’s license at all.
I see that now. I’ll just add that unless the State is exchanging license-for-license, it is unethical to require new residents to give up their valid license to get a new license. Money doesn’t grow on trees.
Noted.
If you were to offer a guess, which of the remaining forty-nine states do you imagine does NOT impose a similar requirement?
How on earth is a state driver’s license unethical? :dubious:
If that is the case under NH law, I concede.
That is the very argument being used, up here in Live Free or Die. And that’s a corker.