The ruling would not impact selectman running for office who are required to recuse themselves as election officials. But Associate Attorney General Anne M. Edwards said electioneering, which is defined in state statues as acting “in any way specifically designed to influence the vote of a voter on any question or office,” is not limited to Election Day.
Does anyone know if someone has spoken to the AG about Imse? According to this article he broke the law if he plans on being the Moderator on Tuesday and has not stepped down as of yet.
According to the law, Peter Imse should step down now. If he doesn’t, he would jeopardize the entire vote on Tuesday.
Considering what happened in Peterborough, you would think they would have jumped right on it. However, don’t expect them to apply the law equally.
From what I am reading the compelled speech violations are stacked sky high.
And YES it’s called compelled speech.
IMHO, Peter Imse has indeed broken the law. His article in the Communist Monitor was biased and full of mistakes, errors, and outright lies.
TITLE LXIII
ELECTIONS
CHAPTER 659
ELECTION PROCEDURE
Prohibited Acts
Section 659:40
659:40 Bribing; Intimidation; Suppression. –
I. No person shall directly or indirectly bribe any person not to register to vote or any voter not to vote or to vote for or against any question submitted to voters or to vote for or against any ticket or candidate for office at any election.
II. No person shall use or threaten force, violence, or any tactic of coercion or intimidation to knowingly induce or compel any other person to vote or refrain from voting, vote or refrain from voting for any particular candidate or ballot measure, or refrain from registering to vote.
III. No person shall engage in voter suppression by knowingly attempting to prevent or deter another person from voting or registering to vote based on fraudulent, deceptive, misleading, or spurious grounds or information. Prohibited acts of voter suppression include:
(a) Challenging another person’s right to register to vote or to vote based on information that he or she knows to be false or misleading.
(b) Attempting to induce another person to refrain from registering to vote or from voting by providing that person with information that he or she knows to be false or misleading.
(c) Attempting to induce another person to refrain from registering to vote or from voting at the proper place or time by providing information that he or she knows to be false or misleading about the date, time, place, or manner of the election.
IV. Whoever violates the provisions of this section or whoever conspires to violate the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a class B felony.
V. This section is not intended to preclude prosecution or sentencing under any section of RSA 640.
“Attempting to induce another person to refrain from registering to vote or from voting by providing that person with information that he or she knows to be false or misleading.”
I doubt Imse would consider stepping down which, of course, is the correct course to follow. Since Bow has more lawyers per capita than most small towns I sense that there would be those in his “fold” who come to his rescue, appeal the case on legal grounds, hence allowing Imse to conduct the meeting in a way in which HE sees fit. Lawyers always twist the facts to suit their needs. It’ll never change. If there is a loophole, his pals Crisp and Judd will find it.
My next door is a lawyer. A truly great guy who hates the satus quo here in Bow and wants to do something about it he and his wife will be voting for SB2 quietly. Why quietly because of the cabal that is often mentioned on this website.
I also understand that there is a gun rights lawyer who also happens to be a free stater who just moved. I bet I would like this guy too.
So the moral to my story is that all lawyers aren’t bad but many give the whole bunch a bad name.
Why are people not filing a complaint with the NH Attorney General against Mr Imse for electioneering??
And also against Hatem for the fiasco and electioneering that took place at the school meeting?
99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name. Crisp, Hatem, Imse, Judd all come to mind.
to yeswecan & tax tired in Bow:
Yes, you folks are correct in that not all lawyers are bad. It’s true that a few give a bad name for the profession as a whole. My biggest issue is with those lawyers who hold public office and flaunt the profession with almost every item coming before the board. They simple don’t view ANYTHING without seeing it through legal interpretation. That’s just my opinion and probably isn’t shared by many.
Perhaps one might be a little “gun shy” when confronting a lawyer simply because of the potential of a legal ramifications. There’s an old saying in that “you can’t be too careful.” Be very wary of lawyers holding any public office.