#

House Speaker Sherman Packard said he did nothing wrong in his handling of the case of Troy Merner, the former state House member charged with illegal voting and lying about his residency. And, he told reporters Wednesday, he is done talking about the topic.

Packard (R-Londonderry) met with a small group of reporters to clear the air, set the record straight, and end the discussion about what he did and did not do when he first learned Merner did not live in his Lancaster district.

“We had to let the process play out since it was under investigation by the (New Hampshire Department of Justice,)” Packard said. “I never talked to Troy Merner the whole time about his residency.”

Saying it would be the last time he planned to talk about Merner, Packard often sounded defensive during the meeting with NHPR, the Union Leader, and NHJournal, saying he could not have taken action when his office learned last December that Merner’s residency was under investigation by the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office.

“Do what? What would you have me do? Get in the middle of an investigation? That could be criminal. Which is what it turned out to be,” Packard said. “If I had gotten involved in it and screwed up the investigation, you guys would probably be jumping all over me for ‘Why did you get involved’… I lose no matter what the hell I do.”

The New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office charged Merner, 63, last month on counts of wrongful voting, theft by deception, and unsworn falsification following its investigation. Merner is scheduled to be arraigned on Thursday, Dec. 28 in Coos County Superior Court. 

Packard’s meeting on Wednesday was an attempt to put an end to the critical news stories that dogged his office since the news broke.

“We tried to put this to bed, and every time we try and put it to bed, somebody puts a report out or something of that nature and blows the whole thing up again,” Packard said.

Packard blamed the media and partisan politics for giving life to the controversy and not anything he did or did not do.

“Would this [interest in the Merner story] have happened if we or the other party had a 50-vote majority? Probably not. Let’s be realistic; there’s a lot of politics involved in this right now,” Packard said.

According to documents so far released in the case, the Attorney General’s Office emailed Terry Pfaff — Chief Operating Officer of the New Hampshire legislature — on Dec. 6, 2022, one day before the House Organization Day. The email alerted House authorities to questions about Merner’s living situation and the ongoing investigation. A Packard staffer contacted Merner soon after receiving that email, and Merner denied he was no longer a Lancaster resident.

At that point, according to Packard, he decided to wait for the attorney general.

“We didn’t jump into any type of investigation; we took the man at his word. We had no reason not to, regardless of what the investigation said, because it wasn’t finished,” Packard said. 

Merner, a member of the Lancaster select board, allegedly moved out of Lancaster before he was elected to the House last November. According to court records, Merner considered his Lancaster office, post office box, and intent to eventually move back enough to establish his residency in the district despite the fact he was actually living in Carroll with his wife.

Deputy Speaker Rep. Steve Smith (R-Charlestown) played wingman to Packard at Wednesday’s press conference, explaining that no one made a formal complaint for Packard to act on and brought proof that Merner was not a Lancaster resident to the speaker.

“Anybody could have brought a complaint, and nobody did,” Smith said.

Without a complaint, Smith said that Packard could not act, adding that the Speaker’s Office does not generally investigate alleged misdeeds, nor does it conduct surveillance on members.

“The Speaker’s Office has a chief of staff, a deputy chief of staff, and … a communications director. We’re not going to deploy them to stake people out,” Smith said. “We don’t have staff or resources for that based on a rumor.”

Merner finally resigned from the House in September aw the attorney general’s investigation neared conclusion. At that point, the Department of Justice provided Packard with proof Merner was not a Lancaster resident. Packard followed up on that information by pushing Merner to step down.

“Once proof was given to us by the DOJ, we acted immediately,” Packard said.

Even if Packard got involved, past House precedent showed nothing would have happened, Packard and Smith argued. They pointed to a similar controversy from 1990, when it was learned Democratic Rep. Cynthia McGovern did not live in her Portsmouth district but instead lived in Hampton. 

Then-Speaker Steve Shurtleff (D-Penacook) appointed a committee to investigate McGovern’s residency, which took years to bring a resolution ousting McGovern to the floor. Despite it being a clear case of a representative living outside their district, the House voted down a 1992 resolution to boot McGovern from her seat.

“If we did investigate, what would have happened? It would have been really hard to find any conclusion other than the 1992 committee report that saw something just like this,” Smith said.

Is Packard worried about accusations from Democrats that he mishandled the Merner situation or the impact of this incident on his speakership going forward?

“I’ve been in politics a long time. I can’t control what everybody thinks,” Packard said.

House Speaker Sherman Packard (R-Londonderry) said Republican Rep. Troy Merner lied to him when confronted about his residency last year.

Feeling heat from Democrats after state Attorney General John Formella announced voter fraud and theft charges on Tuesday against Merner, Packard issued a statement Wednesday laying out his version of the controversy.

Packard acknowledged the Department of Justice told his office last December that Merner was accused of living outside his Lancaster, N.H. district. But Packard said he did not have verified information and could not take action. According to Packard’s statement, the Speaker’s Office conducted an investigation that stalled when Merner continued to lie about his residence.

“Upon being informed of the DOJ communication, the Speaker’s Office initiated a review of the matter, which included calling and interviewing Merner to confront him about the allegations in the Department of Justice communication,” Packard said.

“At that time, Merner continued to attest that his domicile was in Lancaster at the apartment he rented on Elm Street. The review did not obtain any new information other than what was contained in the information the Department of Justice provided; therefore, the matter was considered inconclusive pending further investigation/findings by the Department of Justice or other findings that may come through other processes or sources.”

Democrats said House Republican leaders, clinging to a 201-198 majority, didn’t want to know the truth about Merner.

“Given the closely divided partisan makeup of the House this term, it is of grave concern that Rep. Merner’s residency violations were overlooked both in Lancaster and in Concord while he continued to hold elected office,” House Democratic Leader Rep. Matt Wilhelm (D-Manchester) said in a statement.

Merner was elected to represent Lancaster, Dalton, North Umberland, and Stratford in November, months after he moved out of the district and sold his Lancaster home. The Attorney General’s Office received a complaint about Merner from a Lancaster resident a week after the November election and sent an investigator to speak to the representative.

Investigator Anna Brewer-Croteau found Merner living in a home in the town of Carroll, well outside his district. Wearing boxers and a t-shirt and eating cereal, Merner acknowledged to the investigator that he lived outside the district.

In the affidavit released Tuesday by Formella’s office, Merner maintained an office in town and slept there “multiple nights a week.” He followed that up by claiming other people do the same thing.

“(Merner) told (Brewer-Croteau) that he knows of other people who vote in Lancaster and are not domiciled there. (Merner) denied to identify these people,” the affidavit states.

As well as being Lancaster’s state representative, Merner also served on the town’s Board of Selectmen. He told Brewer-Croteau he had no plans to run for reelection.

Brewer-Croteau’s report was conveyed to General Court Chief Operating Officer Terry Pfaff on Dec. 6, 2o22.

Packard insisted he and his fellow GOP leaders in the House didn’t have enough to go on at the time.

“The information was not conclusive in nature and made no final determination about Merner’s domicile. The information also contained Merner’s account that the allegations were unfounded and that the investigation was ongoing,” Packard said.

Packard claimed he never got an official complaint about Merner’s living situation, nor did he get any confirmation from Formella about Merner’s residency until September. Throughout Merner’s time in the House, he submitted mileage reimbursement forms for his Lancaster address and maintained official ties to Lancaster. 

“He continued to serve on the Lancaster Board of Selectmen, which further legitimized his attestations,” Packard said.

After Merner was caught voting in the March 2023 Lancaster election, Formella’s office started asking about Merner’s office. During that investigation, it was learned that Merner did not, in fact, sleep at his Lancaster office multiple times a week. According to the affidavit, neighbors told investigators he did not sleep there at all. 

Packard never got a formal notice about the March voting complaint, nor did he get one about Merner’s admission in May that he did not live in Lancaster. However, once Formella’s investigation wrapped up, Packard said he took immediate steps to deal with Merner.

“When the Speaker’s Office was made aware of the conclusions made by the Department of Justice in September 2023, rapid action was taken to force Merner to vacate his seat,” Packard said.

Merner resigned from the Lancaster Select Board in October. He is charged with wrongful voting, a class B felony carrying a sentence of up to 7 years in prison and a fine of up to $4,000, and multiple other charges.

Merner is due to be arraigned on Dec. 28.

Maybe Republican former state Rep. Troy Merner should not have answered the door in his underwear when an investigator from the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office knocked at the Carroll home where he lives.

Maybe he should have resigned from his elected positions when he moved to the home outside his district. Or maybe someone in the State House should have acted when they were alerted about Merner’s residency in December 2022.

That was when top lawyers with the New Hampshire Department of Justice, Myles Matteson and Anne Edwards, called Terry Pfaff, the Chief Operating Officer of the General Court, to inform him of Merner’s living situation, according to records made available Tuesday. House Speaker Sherman Packer (R-Londonderry) acknowledged Tuesday he was informed last December as well.

Merner was allowed to continue to represent the district he no longer lived in for months.

The New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office announced Tuesday it is charging Merner, 63, for wrongful voting, theft by deception, and unsworn falsification. The charges are the next act in a legal drama that started a year ago.

Formella’s office did not make Merner’s residency problem public until this March after it received a complaint that Merner had voted in Lancaster’s municipal election. Merner continued to serve in the House until September, when Formella’s office sent a memo to Packard confirming Merner did not live in Lancaster.

However, according to the records, investigators and attorneys inside Formella’s office knew Merner did not live in Lancaster as early as December of last year.

Packard said in a statement released Tuesday night he was aware of the December call to Pfeff, but Merner disputed that he did not meet the residency requirement. 

“Allegations against Merner were made in December 2022, and the General Court was made aware that Merner disputed and contested those allegations then. Merner continued to attest to the General Court through signed official paperwork that his residence was in Lancaster,” Packard said. “The details of Merner’s admissions relative to his residing outside of his district were not brought to the attention of the Speaker’s Office until September when the Department of Justice investigation had concluded.”

Merner was a Lancaster selectman and a state representative for Lancaster, Dalton, North Cumberland, and Stratford. The only problem is that he lives in Carroll, having moved there in the summer of 2022 with his new wife, Janet Nelson. After moving, Merner was elected to the House to represent Coos District 1 in November 2022.

Merner did not respond to a call Tuesday. He claimed, according to statements made to investigators, that his out-of-district residency was well known, and he was encouraged by others to continue serving, though he did not name his supporters.

The affidavit filed in the case depicted a man who seemed not to realize he was doing anything wrong.

“State Rep. Merner told (Investigator Anna) Brewer-Croteau that he could not believe that someone actually complained to (the attorney general), further stating that he (State Rep. Merner) has done so much for the town of Lancaster,” the affidavit written by Investigator Thomas Defosses stated.

A Lancaster resident contacted the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office a week after the 2022 election to report Merner was no longer living in town, and that the fact was well-known in Lancaster.

Merner sold his Lancaster home in the summer of 2022 and moved to Carroll after marrying Nelson. He claimed he had an arrangement with the buyer of his former home that he could temporarily stay in a room there, but he often stays overnight in an office he’s rented in Lancaster.

In his Dec. 5 meeting with Brewer-Croteau, during which he was in his boxers and a T-shirt and eating cereal, Merner said he planned to finish his terms as a selectman and state representative but not stand for reelection in 2024 since he no longer lived in Lancaster.

Lancaster Town Manager Benjamin Gaetjens-Oleson was aware of the issue when Brewer-Croteau interviewed him, saying he had fielded many complaints about Merner’s residency. But, Gaetjens-Oleson felt he could not do anything since Merner was technically his boss.

Gaetjens-Oleson reportedly warned Merner about his residency problem, saying it was “going to cause an upheaval with the locals.”

Merner would later tell Investigator Richard Tracy he had to keep on as a selectman since he was the only member of the board who did any work.

Tracy was assigned to the case after Fenella’s office got a complaint about Merner voting in the March elections in Lancaster. Merner told Tracy he thought voting was OK even though he did not live there.

“(He) said he had not heard back from the Attorney General’s Office since he spoke with (Investigator) Brewer-Croteau, and he did not think he was doing anything wrong,” the affidavit states. 

At that point, Tracy had established Merner was not regularly sleeping in the office he rented in Lancaster, as the neighbors attested they did not see him. When confronted with that, Merner claimed he thought it would be OK if he had an address in Lancaster and worked at the town offices regularly.

Now that his residency was out in the open, the investigation was on. Investigators found Merner had been submitting mileage expenses to the General Court for round trips to Concord from Lancaster and not Carroll. Lawmakers can get reimbursed for their trips to Concord to serve their constituents.

A round trip from Lancaster to Concord is about 202 miles, while the Carroll to Concord trip is about 176 miles, meaning Merner was overcharging taxpayers to get to work. According to the affidavit, Merner overcharged taxpayers a total of $973 throughout his entire term.

Merner was ousted from the House in September and resigned as a Lancaster selectman in October. He is now facing prison time, as the wrongful voting charge is a class B misdemeanor which carries a possible three-and-a-half to seven-year prison sentence. He is due to be arraigned on Dec. 28.

The state of Maine recently went to court to fight against transparency regarding its voter registration data, a position so problematic it drew opposition from both the Biden administration and one of its most fervent critics.

Maine is appealing the federal lawsuit won by the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) over the Pine Tree State’s law restricting who can access voter registration data and what they can do with it.

“The public has a right to inspect election records and discuss any errors they find,” said PILF President J. Christian Adams. “Maine has given the government power to silence individuals from speaking and criticizing election officials for not doing a good job. This case is an important step to stop the growing trend of states trying to dictate how concerned citizens may research voter rolls.”

Maine’s Secretary of State Shenna Bellows wants to keep the law allowing the state to review how its data is used and punish anyone it believes has used it improperly. Opponents say that violates the National Voter Registration Act (NRVA).

In an October 5 hearing, PILF lawyer Noel Johnson told judges in the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston that Maine’s law uses the threat of punishment to harm the public by keeping it in the dark about how elections are conducted.

“Congress designed the NVRA to make voter registration and list maintenance transparent, and Maine is thwarting Congress’ design. They are preventing criticism and speech,” Johnson said. 

PILF describes itself as a public interest law firm “dedicated to election integrity. The Foundation exists to assist states and others to aid the cause of election integrity and fight against lawlessness in American elections.” It has frequently challenged election policies, like expanding vote by mail, backed by the Biden administration and its political allies.

Congress passed the NVRA in 1993 to “increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote” in federal elections, “enhance the participation of eligible citizens as voters” in those elections, “protect the integrity of the electoral process,” and “ensure that accurate and current voter registration rolls are maintained.”

A key part of the NVRA requires that states provide transparent voter registration data to the public. Noah Bokat-Lindell, a Biden administration lawyer with the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, said transparency is vital in order to combat discrimination at the polls.

Bokat-Lindell argued laws like the one in Maine could be used to hide unconstitutional efforts to prevent minorities from voting. Making all voter registration data public, as the NVRA requires, gives the public tools to combat voter suppression.

“This is incredibly important to voter registration organizations,” Bokat-Lindell said.

United States District Court Judge George Singal ruled in favor of PILF earlier this year, finding Maine’s law flies in the face of the plain language of the NVRA by improperly restricting the use of the voter lists and imposing fines on anyone who ignores those restrictions.

The law would prohibit organizations like PILF from comparing Maine’s roll to New York’s to identify duplicate registrations across state lines. It would also stop people and organizations from reporting and educating on specific entries in Maine’s voter roll. The law imposes $1,000 fines for every violation, which could add up given Maine’s voter rolls include more than 1 million names. 

Maine’s Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Bolton argued Signal got it wrong in his ruling, claiming the state has no plans to enforce the penalties written into the law.

“I think it’s unlikely anything like that could happen,” Bolton said.

While Maine’s law could have been “worded better,” Bolton said PILF would almost certainly not be prosecuted for using voter registration data to analyze the election process in Maine, given the current policy of the Maine Attorney General’s Office. 

Justice Julie Rikelman did not appear to find the argument persuasive. She noted Bolton’s argument ignores the plain meaning of Maine’s law in favor of an informal, non-binding policy decision.

“Generally, we’re supposed to believe the legislature means what it says,” Rikelman said.

Justice Gustavo Gelpí noted Bolton’s assurance also ignores the fact that a new administration in Portland could easily reverse course and decide to prosecute PILF or anyone else. 

“I’ve had cases go on for years, a new government comes in, they change policy, and it’s back to square one,” Gelpi said.

PILF has been fighting Maine since 2019 when then-Secretary of State Matthew Dunlop denied the group’s request for the data. At the time, Maine’s law restricted voter registration data to political candidates and groups involved in get-out-the-vote efforts.

In response to the lawsuit, Maine changed the law to allow PILF to see the data. However, the restrictions and penalties in the revised statute meant PILF could legally not report on the findings in the data. 

Former state Sen. Melanie Levesque wants to be the Granite State’s next secretary of state, giving her the authority to oversee the state’s elections.

But critics say that would conflict with her current position: “Senior advisor to the New Hampshire Democratic Party.” And she is also a representative of a far-left organization that targeted New Hampshire’s election laws and promotes conspiracy theories about New Hampshire’s electoral college votes being “stolen.”

Levesque, an outspoken progressive Democrat, lost her bid to unseat Republican Kevin Avard earlier this month. Despite losing by nearly 700 votes, she made the odd request for a recount of her race.

But Thursday morning, she dropped her recount demand and instead released a statement announcing her intent to challenge current Secretary of State David Scanlan. The secretary of state is selected by the state legislature.

“It is no secret. Over the past decade in New Hampshire, our sacred right — the right to vote — has been under attack. New Hampshire has become home to some of the most aggressive attacks on our democracy,” Levesque said. “New Hampshire desperately needs a new secretary of state that will work tirelessly to ensure that every eligible voter can cast a ballot without unnecessary government interference.”

New Hampshire has a tradition of nonpartisanship in its Secretary of State’s Office, established by legendary Secretary Bill Gardner, who retired last January as the nation’s longest-serving secretary of state. Though a former Democratic state representative, Gardner established a strong reputation for working with both sides of the aisle, angering his fellow Democrats by serving on President Trump’s voter fraud commission.

In 2018, Democrats unhappy with Gardner supported failed gubernatorial candidate Colin Van Ostern for the position. Gardner picked up GOP support and was re-elected by a one-vote margin.

Scanlan, who spent 20 years as Gardner’s deputy, said he feels comfortable with his chances of keeping his job when the legislature votes. Asked about Levesque’s candidacy, he told NHJournal, “She’s welcome to do that.”

As a senator, Levesque chaired the Senate Election Law Committee where she advocated allowing unlimited mail-in ballots and voter registration over the internet.

Levesque is also an outspoken advocate of the federal “For The People Act” which would override New Hampshire’s election laws, end voter ID mandates, and force New Hampshire to provide a ballot to everyone without asking for identification. It would also override laws banning ballot harvesting (as long as the harvesters are not paid per ballot) and mandate curbside voting.

Levesque is such a strong advocate of those progressive voting policies she recorded a video on the anniversary of the House of Representatives’ passage of the “For the People Act” with fellow Democrat, state Sen. Tom Sherman.

The New Hampshire Democratic Party declined requests for comment about Levesque’s current position with the party. Levesque also refused to respond to reporters’ questions.

And a progressive group called The States Project features Levesque on its website, along with it goal to “block rightwing policies that harm New Hampshirites [sic] from becoming law and protect the Granite State’s four electoral votes from being stolen in the next presidential election.”

It also brags about its partisan involvement in New Hampshire’s legislative elections. “The States Project was early to identify the New Hampshire Senate as the most endangered majority in the country in 2020, after helping to flip it in 2018 by only 300 votes.”

Republicans immediately raised concerns about a partisan activist potentially serving in a position of overseeing the state’s elections.

“New Hampshire’s secretary of state has a historic record of working in a nonpartisan way to advocate for our election processes,” said Sen. Regina Birdsell (R-Derry), who serves on the Election Law and Municipal Affairs Committee. “I don’t believe anyone serving as a partisan advisor such as Mrs. Levesque can be entrusted to fulfill that role with the objectivity required.”

For his part, Scanlan has made increasing voter trust in the state’s election process. He created the Special Committee on Voter Confidence to address concerns about election integrity in New Hampshire. That committee has found no evidence of wide-scale voter fraud, and it is expected to issue its report in the coming weeks.

If the GOP backs Scanlan over Levesque, the narrow Republican majority could carry him to his first elected term in office, aided by the GOP’s 14-10 majority in the Senate. Republicans looked like they cemented their small lead over Democrats on Thursday with the reopening of the Hillsborough 16 district election that is likely to return the seat to Republican Larry Gagne.

A Democratic member of the Federal Election Commission isn’t going to let President Donald Trump go without providing evidence that there was voter fraud during the 2016 presidential election in New Hampshire.

In yet another letter to Trump, FEC Commissioner Ellen Weintraub is asking Trump to provide proof of his claim that thousands of Democratic Massachusetts residents were bused to the Granite State on election day to illegally vote against him.

“This allegation of a vast conspiracy, involving thousands of people committing felony criminal acts aimed at stealing the election, has deeply disturbed citizens throughout America,” she wrote in a Wednesday letter. “I have heard from many of them, including proud and patriotic New Englanders who are shocked by the allegation and feel that it impugns their historic role in our democracy.”

She also called on Trump in February to provide evidence for his voter fraud claim.

This latest letter adds fuel to the fire of what’s already been a heated debate between Republicans and Democrats in New Hampshire when it comes to the state’s election laws. In fact, the Senate is close to voting on a major bill that would close several of the state’s voting law loopholes, according to Republicans.

The legend of Massachusetts voters busing into the Granite State to cast a ballot in our elections is not a new tale, but here’s a quick timeline of events that led to this sweeping legislation:

• A few weeks after the election, when Trump defeated Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, he tweeted, “Serious voter fraud in Virginia, New Hampshire and California — so why isn’t the media reporting on this? Serious bias — big problem!” Trump won the Electoral College, but lost New Hampshire to Clinton by about 2,700 votes.
• Before Trump’s tweet, and about a week before the election, then-Republican gubernatorial candidate Chris Sununu, told radio host Howie Carr that Democrats abuse New Hampshire’s same-day voter registration, and “when Massachusetts elections are not very close, they’re busing them in all over the place.” Politifact rated his claim as “Pants on Fire.”
• This led to backlash from Granite State officials, including the state’s attorney general and secretary of state’s offices, who wanted to quell fears that New Hampshire elections are illegitimate.
• After the election, Sununu said he was not aware of any “specific evidence of voter fraud.”

Yet, it didn’t stop there. Trump kept talking about voter fraud even after his presidential inauguration.

• During a closed-door meeting between Trump, former N.H. Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte, and 10 other senators to discuss U.S. Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, Trump reportedly started the meeting by discussing the election and voter fraud.  He claimed that he and Ayotte would have both won in the Granite State if not for the “thousands” of people who were “brought in on buses” from Massachusetts to “illegally” vote in New Hampshire.
• Stephen Miller, a senior adviser to Trump, made the claim again in an interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week.” He said: “This issue of busing voters in to New Hampshire is widely known by anyone who’s worked in New Hampshire politics. It’s very real, it’s very serious.”
• Even recently, in a TIME Magazine interview published Thursday, Trump stood by his claim that three million undocumented people voted in the national election. He said: “Well now if you take a look at the votes, when I say that, I mean mostly they register wrong, in other words, for the votes, they register incorrectly, and or/illegally. And they then vote. You have tremendous numbers of people. In fact I’m forming a committee on it.”

Many Republicans and Democrats are upset that Trump is pushing a false narrative and is making people question the integrity of the democratic voting process. However, his statement perfectly illustrates what his supporters and several Republicans believe is the problem with election laws in New Hampshire: The current laws make it difficult to charge anyone with voter fraud because what’s legal here is usually illegal in another state.

Are there lots of illegal votes in NH? No.

Are there lot of legal votes from people who have no business voting in NH? Yes. #nhpolitics

— Greg Moore (@GregMooreNH) November 28, 2016

Hence, Senate Bill 3, which was introduced by Sen. Regina Birdsell, R-Hampstead, to address a lot of those concerns. Of course, the bill is divided on party lines — it’s cheered by Republicans who say they are trying to tighten the process and ensure that those who vote in New Hampshire actually live in New Hampshire and criticized by Democrats who say the bill is a form of voter suppression.

One of the issues it focuses on is the definition of domicile, which varies from state to state, and the New Hampshire Legislature is trying to better define the difference between “domicile” and “residence” in this bill. Under current laws, the definition of domicile is “that place, to which upon temporary absence, a person has the intention of returning.” Republicans think that’s vague and allows campaign workers, who might be in the state for a month or so, to vote in New Hampshire, even if they plan on leaving after the election.

An incident occurred in the 2008 and 2012 elections when Sen. Martha Fuller Clark, D-Portsmouth, allowed Democratic staffers to live at her home. The staffers used her address to vote in the election, and since they were living in the state for at least three months before the election, the Attorney General ruled that it was legal.

Under the new bill, a person who registers to vote within 30 days of an election or on Election Day must show verification that a New Hampshire address is his or her domicile. That can be done by showing proof of residency at a college or university, driver’s license, utility bill, among other forms. Those who do not show documentation can still register and vote by filling out a domicile affidavit and registration form, and provide the documentation within 10 or 30 days of Election Day, depending on the community. Someone could get charged with voter fraud if they fail to provide a document verifying his or her domicile within that window.

A previous version of the bill called for police officer to knock on doors to verify a voter’s domicile, but that provision was taken out this week. The bill still allows municipal officials to visit those addresses or ask “agents” to do so.

The Senate Election Law Committee recommended Tuesday in favor of the bill by a 3-2 vote on party lines and it now heads to the full Senate for a vote.

Adding to the controversy, the Attorney General’s office recently said investigations into thousands of affidavit voters who cast ballots in New Hampshire without identification during the 2012 and 2014 election cycles have been dropped due to the lack of manpower and money to complete the investigations.

How can the Attorney General and Secretary of State’s office say there is no evidence of voter fraud if they aren’t investigating every potential violation? That’s what Republicans are asking.

Sununu’s budget didn’t fulfill the attorney general’s request for roughly $93,000 annually to hire a full-time elections investigator. A Senate bill would provide about $500,000 to the Attorney General’s office for with focus on elections, lobbying, and campaign finance law. That bill passed the Senate and is now in the House Finance Committee.

“No matter how you change it, there is not a problem in the state of New Hampshire,” said Senate Democratic Leader Jeff Woodburn. “There’s been a ruse of illegal voting, and Trump buses, and all of this business. This is nothing but a concerted national attempt to suppress voting and harass voters.”

“This is not national trend legislation,” Birdsell said this week. “This is homegrown here. It is something that is trying to address what some of our constituents are looking for.”

The debate on this bill, and the discussion of voter fraud in New Hampshire, is far from over.

Follow Kyle on Twitter.