Thanks for the answer. I suspected it would something like that. It's "criminal" what Orly's has gotten away with. And one would never question Orly's "competence" since she has none. Personally, I think that there is no question that Orly's suffers from some sort of mental impairment -- it's just a matter of selecting all the possible ways she's impaired.

nbc - there's also:

Yes one for NM candidate, one for US Senator Candidate from NH. But read the statute: Contributions need to be to influence the elections. There were no elections for Shaheen in 2011 as she joined the Senate in 2009.

I would love to see the court make a statement that Obama's a natural born citizen ala Ankeny v Gov of Indiana -- and then make some snarky remarks similar to what Cook made in his written report. And, as a added measure, maybe a statement that says something to the effect that submitting 85 pages in a motion/challenge is not the same thing as submitting 85 pages of credible evidence that can stand up in court.

Maybe I am reading this incorrectly. Is Orly saying that she added people without their approval? As we all suspected she had?
[/quote]



I read it as some of her "plaintiffs" (Keyes, Drake and Robinson) were pissed that so many plaintiffs were added they got lost in the shuffle while a nobody became the face of the case.

I see what you are saying nbc but to me it seems a quite a stretch to interprate the statutes that way.

I agree. Keyes is Taitz's biggest name client, and for no good reason she bumped him from the caption. (Not that such things matter, but (lunatic's) egos and all.) And now Barnett is the head of an organization, writing books, or whatever.

Drake and Robinson also had the best arguments for standing (being actual candidates and all), and they got lost in the shuffle as well. And then Taitz tried to dismiss them from their suit.*

Drake must curse the day he introduced Taitz to Kreep.


* They got the last laugh: The case in the 9th is called Drake v. Obama.

Why? A literal reading suggests that candidates are only those who are seeking an election for an office.

665:3 Political Contributions Prohibited. – No ballot law commission member shall make a contribution, as defined in RSA 664:2, to any candidate for office or political committee.
Source. 2003, 151:8, eff. Jan. 1, 2004.

664:2:

II. "Candidate'' means any person publicly declared as such and for whom votes are sought in an election.

VIII. "Contribution'' shall mean a payment, gift, subscription, assessment, contract, payment for services, dues advance, forbearance or loan to a candidate or political committee made for the purpose of influencing the nomination or election of any candidate. "Contributions'' shall include the use of any thing of value but shall not include the services of volunteers who receive no pay therefor or the use of personal resources by a candidate on behalf of his candidacy.

So the question becomes: If I give money to a Senator from NH who is not running as a candidate for election, is this in violation of the NH Statutes if I also were to serve on the Ballot Law Commission?

Well, firstly one would have to interpret the NH statutes as only referring to candidates in New Hampshire - quite possible I suppose but unless I've missed something I see nothing in the statute that I can read that way. This relevent because the 2011 contribution to Martin Heinrich was made nearly 3 months after Heinrich declared his candidacy for US Senate in 2012.

Secondly, one would have to interpret the NH statutes as prohibiting contributions being made prior to an election but allowing them afterwards , say to help clear debts the campaign has run up. (Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign springs to mind) - again possible but seems to fly in the face of common sense.

I thought someone on the NH challenge thread quoted a NH law stating that appointments of alternates (as opposed to regular members) became effective the following July. French was named an alternate to the Ballot Commission in October, 2010, so his appointment would be effective July 1, 2011. If so, then contributions prior to July, 2011 would be allowed.

Both alternates and regulars start their appointment on July BUT replacements can start any time to end the term of the person they replace.

My two cents: The purpose of these statutes are to eliminate any appearance of impropriety in the carrying out of the ballot commission's duties. If the BLC members are donating dollars to candidates who may come before them in course of carrying out their election duties, it implies that they are biased in those duties.

But when there are no pending elections that might have issues before the BLC, the rule is not needed. Donating to out-of-state races cannot affect the activities of the BLC as those races never come before the BLC. Donating after the election says nothing about conduct during it.

That is so, someone did suggest that a while back but I felt sceptical about it at the time and Orly's petition prompted me to spend a little unexpected free time today checking the situation. What I found was that he was appointed to serve the remainder of the term of the previous alternate and the NH Executive Council minutes specified that his confirmation was effective 10/6/2010.

Thanks for clarifying that, nbc.

It surely refers to candidates: No ballot law commission member shall make a contribution, as defined in RSA 664:2, to any candidate for office or political committee.

And it applies only to NH (of course)





In New Mexico, that has NO relevance to NH..



The restriction is to contributions meant to influence the nomination or election. After the election such contributions would not serve such purpose.

Uhoh, I was wrong, their appointment expires on July 1.



versus



So was French an alternate or not? But if he was, why was he appointed on October 6th...

Yes the appointment was for an alternate but then his term did not start until July 1

French was mentioned on November 18, 2011 so far only.

So in fact the original position was correct after all. He was appointed but his term did not start until July 1

OK nbc - you've got me on the out of state contributions I misread 664.1 - mentaly slipped in a comma where there isn't one. Still thinking about the other point.

I demand a jury trial

Here's what Welsh Dragon said a couple of posts up:

Yes the appointment may have been effective October 6, 2010 but the term for alternates does not start until July 1. And I have found so far no evidence that French ever was involved until November 18, 2011

I'd go a bit stronger - the Ballot Law Commission doesn't seem to have met between 18th November 2010 which French did not attend and 18th November 2011. (They had busy 2010 though - ten cases and something about ballot machines)

Excellent data. Now I understand that there is no real urgency to have the alternate's term started... Hmm Did French show up at any of the 2010 meetings after October 6 and before Nov 18?

The answer is nope...

This makes sense when you consider the election cycle and the tight timelines for doing their job.