inside sources print logo
Get up to date New Hampshire news in your inbox

Pro-Life Republican Lovett Running as Democrat in District 8 Senate Race

What do you call a Democrat who’s voted in favor of a 20-week abortion ban, supported allowing gun owners to carry concealed weapons without a permit, and tried to pass restrictions to stop college students from voting?

Claremont’s Charlene Lovett.

A former Republican state representative who also once served as mayor of Claremont, Lovett has launched a bid for the District 8 Senate seat as a Democrat. Lovett said she changed her party registration this year because she’s become disenchanted with the GOP over the years.

“The party that I grew up in and have been part of for many decades isn’t the party of today. I feel like the party left me behind,” Lovett said.

Lovett now describes herself as a moderate Democrat as she seeks to unseat Sen. Ruth Ward, R-Stoddard.

While in the House in 2012, Lovett had a solidly pro-life voting record: she voted for bans on partial-birth and late-term abortion, as well as a 20-week abortion ban, and a 24-hour waiting period for abortion. She also supported giving legal protection to the unborn who were injured or killed when their mother was assaulted.

Lovett also opposed requiring health insurance to cover contraception.

On ballot access issues, Lovett supported a photo ID mandate. She also supported tightening the rules on residency for voting in a way that would block out-of-state college students from voting in New Hampshire. Most of her (now) fellow Democrats opposed these measures.

Lovett cast conservative votes on a range of issues. She supported tax credits for businesses that donate to private school scholarships and opposed legalizing medical marijuana. She was against refugee resettlements in New Hampshire, and she supported a state lawsuit against the Affordable Care Act.

Ward said she has run into Lovett a few times over the years but does not know her well.

“I have not checked her voting records. It will be very interesting to do some research,” Ward said. “Anyone can run, and I will do my best against whoever is my opponent.”

Asked about her decidedly un-moderate voting record, Lovett said she’s changed her mind on many of her former positions.

“Over time, I’ve changed my positions, and that’s been caused by working with people from all walks of life and learning more about the challenges people face in their lives,” she said.

NHJournal reached out to state Democratic leaders to ask about having a candidate with such a pro-Republican record running to represent their party, particularly in a community like Claremont that backed progressive Bernie Sanders in both the 2016 and 2020 presidential primaries.

District 8 also includes Acworth, Antrim, Bennington, Charlestown, Croydon, Deering, Dunbarton, Francestown, Gilsum, Langdon, Lempster, Marlow, Newport, Stoddard, Sunapee, Unity, Washington, Weare and Windsor.

Progressives have been upset with the party establishment for years, as the younger left wing of the party continues to get ignored by the old guard. Two progressives Democrats abandoned the House caucus to become independents during the current session, and a third quit the House entirely.

And leaders of the New Hampshire Democratic Latino Caucus resigned in opposition to the embrace of what they call “racist” immigration policies by Hassan and fellow Democrat incumbent Rep. Chris Pappas. They’ve held public protests as well.

While Lovett may have become a Democrat, she’s no progressive. If she’s able to win her new party’s nomination without a fight, it could be yet another indicator that state party chairman Ray Buckley’s strategy is for New Hampshire Democrats to tack hard to the right as the midterms approach.

It’s not working, according to RNC Spokesman Andrew Mahaleris.

“Whether it’s Maggie Hassan endorsing a border wall, Chris Pappas supporting Title 42, or Charlene Lovett finally revealing her true colors as a Democrat, it’s clear that Ray Buckley and the rest of his party know they are in trouble. While these pandering politicians are claiming to support commonsense policies to get elected, Granite State voters know where their true priorities lie and will defeat them in November,” Mahaleris said.

In addition to her time as a state rep, Lovett has served on the Claremont School Board, City Council, and as the mayor. Her service has not been without controversy.

In 2019, Claremont City Manager Ryan McNutt blamed Lovett for his firing, and for creating a difficult environment in city hall.

“She is one of the most difficult people I’ve worked with,” McNutt said at the time. “She is not someone who understood her role.”

McNutt said Lovett was constantly trying to attain more power as mayor. Claremont is chartered with a weak mayor’s position, giving day-to-day responsibility to the city manager.

“There was a desire for more control,” McNutt said.

That same year, City Councilor Jon Stone accused Lovett of interfering with a police investigation during the 2016 shooting of Claremont man Cody LaFont by city police. Lovett said at the time that she would welcome an investigation into this accusation, though none was pursued.

Gardner Blasts Hassan Over Fed Election Takeover: ‘This Will Hurt Turnout’

New Hampshire’s top election official says Sen. Maggie Hassan has never spoken to him about the federal voting rights law she’s backing, or its impact on Granite State elections. And, Secretary of State Bill Gardner says, that impact won’t be good.

“This will hurt turnout,” he told NHJournal Tuesday.

Last week, Hassan made national news when she took to the Senate floor to announce she was abandoning her support for the filibuster in order to pass the “Freedom to Vote” Act. The bill would impose federal mandates on all 50 states regarding early voting, voter registration rules, voter ID, and taxpayer-funded campaign ads. Federal power over local election laws is needed, Hassan said, because of “partisans who are attacking our democracy.”

Unless the federal government intervenes, Election Day in New Hampshire would be very different, Hassan warned.

“We’ll wake up, cast our vote, drop our kids at school, go to work. We’ll tune back in at the end of the day to see the election results – only to learn that the vote tally is being ignored, that our votes don’t matter much. We’ll learn that our legislatures are going to throw out the results and pick their own winner. We’ll see an election day that is a charade – just like in countries where democracy doesn’t exist.”

Hassan followed up her floor speech with a WMUR interview: “If we can’t protect the wonderful elections that we have in New Hampshire, then we are all faced with a slide toward authoritarianism,” Hassan said.

Gardner rejected Hassan’s conspiracy theories and argued the real danger to the Granite State election process is federal intervention like the law Hassan is backing.

“Look back at history, going back to FECA [Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971], the NVRA [1993 National Voter Registration Act], or the Help America Vote Act. Every time the federal government has stepped in to take over more of the election process, they tell us it will increase voter turnout,” Gardner said. “But the results are very different.”

Gardner says New Hampshire has largely avoided most of the requirements of those federal laws, finding workarounds like same-day registration. Other states like California and Colorado have embraced the federal policies, including widespread mail-in voting.

“Look at the results. We have a higher turnout rate,” Gardner said.

In 2020, New Hampshire had the sixth-highest turnout rate of its voting-eligible population (78.3 percent), well above Colorado (71.3 percent) and California (69.4 percent). The Granite State has consistently had among the highest turnout rates in the country for decades.

“They keep saying these new rules will lead to more voting, but that’s not the record if you look at the facts,” Gardner said.

“If you cheapen the value of voting, and you have people losing faith in the process, you’ll lose people on Election Day. That’s what’s been happening in other states.”

Asked if he explained that to Hassan when she called him to discuss the legislation and her position, Gardner told NHJournal his fellow Democrat has never spoken to him about New Hampshire’s election laws or procedures.

“Not even when she was governor, I don’t think,” Gardner said.

Hassan has declined repeated requests for comment. Asked to name the people in New Hampshire she believes are threatening the state with “authoritarianism” or illegally overturned elections, her office declined to respond.

She does have the support of Granite State Democrats, however. They agree with her view that Granite State elections are under local threat.

“Proposals to undermine our free and fair elections and make it harder to vote are here in the New Hampshire legislature and across the country because of unfounded right-wing conspiracy theories intended to sow division and discord,” Deputy House Democratic Leader and Ranking Democrat on the House Election Law Committee, state Rep. David Cote (D-Nashua) said in a statement. “As a caucus, we thank Senator Maggie Hassan for her commitment to defending Granite Staters’ right to cast their ballot, regardless of for whom they cast it.”

Not surprisingly, Republicans took a different view of Hassan’s actions.

“We may never see such a brazen, self-serving flip-flop ever again,” said NRSC spokesman T.W. Arrighi. “Maggie Hassan has gone back on her word and surrendered the fate of New Hampshire’s First-In-The-Nation primary to her buddy Chuck Schumer. What’s most concerning is it appears she surrendered her state’s federal election control to win liberal praise from the radical base she hopes will fund her campaign.”

Gardner, who has repeatedly warned expanding federal control of elections will endanger the state’s First In The Nation primary, is unwilling to attack his fellow Democrat so directly. But, he says, the fallacy of her approach is obvious if you just do some basic math.

“New Hampshire has two members of Congress. States like California, New York, and Texas have far more. If we let Congress make our local election rules, which states are going to decide what the rules are?” Gardner asked.

“California’s not going to get New Hampshire’s election system. We’re going to get stuck with theirs.”

OPINION: Sanders Is Right About Letting Prisoners Vote

On September 9, 1971, complaining of brutality and unsanitary conditions, the inmates of Attica State Prison in upstate New York revolted, wrested control from the prison guards, and took hostages. After 28 days of negotiations, all inmate demands were agreed to but one–amnesty for those who had revolted. These inmates argued that they were forced to take action because, having exhausted every lawful avenue available to them, there was no effective alternative to seek redress of serious and legitimate grievances.

Among their negotiated agreements was the right to vote.

Then, in a much-criticized move which permanently tarnished the career of one of the great political leaders in modern New York history, Gov. Nelson Rockefeller called in troops to forcibly retake the prison and 43 people, mostly prisoners, were killed. Simply giving these men a voice at the ballot box might well have forced elected officials to pay prompt attention to Attica and avoided this human tragedy. Instead, the events at Attica State fanned the flames of hatred and mistrust in prisons and in communities of color across the country.

As an activist for prison reform attending a nearby university at the time of the standoff, I was one of a group of student activists who met with mothers of Attica inmates who worried about the potential of a deadly outcome. The insurgents were blacks, the guards they’d taken hostage were white. We were privileged white kids from far away suburbs who weren’t even old enough to vote ourselves.  These prisoners’ families were inner-city minorities, but they believed we were the nearest thing they had to a connection with the white political establishment, so they begged us to do whatever we could to urge a peaceful resolution to the crisis.

In the end, however, our political action as non-voters went equally unheeded. We watched the news coverage as the horror of the retaking unfolded. I was deeply affected by what I believed to be one of the greatest racially motivated massacres in modern American history. The attack, replete with helicopters, tear gas, and assault rifles, looked like something from Vietnam.

Many years later, I was a frequent visitor to prisons while representing inmates as a criminal appellate attorney. I also have a family member who works in a prison every day.  From the resulting evidence I have garnered, far too many prison inmates today have little to no sense of loyalty to American society, but rather, an unhealthy allegiance to their respective gangs. The gang culture is all-encompassing and it is dangerous for both inmates and prison staff. Too many inmates, both white and of color, are members of either racist or hate-based gangs.

While their lawyer, I tried to highlight for inmates their equal ownership of the fundamental rights of all Americans–the right to a fair trial, to effective counsel, and against self-incrimination, among others–which few had ever experienced or understood. For more than a few, it instilled a sense of dignity which they heretofore had not known. Win or lose, the process of exercising those fundamental rights before the high courts often helped illuminate for them their lost connection to fellow members of their ultimate gang, the one to which we all belong, that American brotherhood of unalienable rights.

We should, therefore, never underestimate the power of being “woke” to our collective democratic heritage. In fact, so valuable was a similar membership in a democracy to the great philosopher Socrates that he chose death by poison hemlock rather than be banished as a citizen of the world’s first democracy, Athens.

To protect a right to a redress of grievances, to lend dignity to the internal prison culture, and to promote the ultimate rehabilitation of inmates, most of Europe and Canada afford the right to vote to every prisoner. So do the states of Maine and Vermont, with the only stipulation being they cannot vote in the local election where the prison lies so as not to have an inordinate impact on that community. Perhaps it is no coincidence that these two states have the lowest crime rates in the country.

Given that the U.S. incarcerates more people than presently live in the state of Rhode Island, the vast majority of which are coming back out some day, maybe we ought to think a little harder about giving them what might be the single greatest leg up on eventually becoming a civilized citizen, the right to vote.

As the Supreme Court has already affirmed that a prisoner does not give up his citizenship or his First Amendment rights by being incarcerated, voting inmates will have the right to access political information and will undoubtedly attract some attention from those who run for office. The resulting opportunity to learn how their government works, learn their Constitutional rights, and participate in democracy, just may lead some to don that cloak of dignity and pride, in common with their keepers, and every American.  And just perhaps they will sooner shed the brand stamped on their forearm by the gang culture that led them to prison, exchanging it for the deeper one they internalize in common with the rest of us.

Many of us outside the prison walls are fond of boasting about our democracy, its hard-earned heritage, and its unique role in history. Our greatest presidents have even called upon us to carry its torch to light the rest of the world. How incongruous of us, then, to deny the right of participation in that democracy to our own citizens who, although incarcerated, will largely be returning to our midst, and still expect them to become responsible members of American society.

There is much to gain and little to lose in finally joining the rest of the civilized world to give them the vote.

Democrats Fight Against Voting Reform, Fetal Homicide Bills Come Up Short in N.H. House

It wasn’t a good day for Democrats in the New Hampshire House. Lawmakers who were opposed to bills like election law reform and fetal homicide legislation saw that their efforts were futile in convincing a Republican-led chamber to defeat them.

Thursday marked the final deadline for the House to act on legislation that originated in the Senate before conference committees are set up on bills to reconcile any differences between the two chambers. Naturally, some of the most controversial bills were saved for this day and most of them passed the House despite protests and hard campaigning from Democrats.

The House passed Senate Bill 3, a bill tightening the identification requirements for people registering to vote, by a 191-162 vote. Only two Democrats voted for the bill and nine Republicans opposed it.

“I commend the support of the House in strengthening the residency requirements for voters in New Hampshire as there is nothing more sacred as a citizen of this state and this nation than the right to cast a ballot in a free and open election,” said bill sponsor Sen. Regina Birdsell, R-Hampstead. “This legislation does nothing more than ask a resident to provide proof that they live where they say they do and provides an additional layer of protections increasing the integrity of elections in the state of New Hampshire.”

This was one of the most hotly debated bills of the legislative session. Proponents say it closes a “domicile loophole” where people are allowed to vote in the state without being required to prove it. Opponents believe it’s a GOP bill to suppress voters, especially young people.

“Today’s vote in support of SB 3 was a partisan sabotage of the election process that will do nothing but confuse and intimidate new voters,” said House Minority Leader Steve Shurtleff. “This legislation adds over 350 words to the registration form that new voters will be required to read, and swear to understand, with the pressure of a growing line behind them at the polls on Election Day.”

The bill heads back to the Senate, which is expected to concur with small changes made by the House. If they approve of it, the bill will go to Gov. Chris Sununu’s desk where he is expected to sign it into law.

Democrats accused that the bill further perpetuates President Donald Trump’s claims that there is rampant voter fraud in the United States.

“This legislation was clearly designed to placate those who buy into President Trump’s discredited assertion that fraud cost him the popular vote in New Hampshire,” Shurtleff said. “Leaders from both parties denounced those assertions, and as we know from the reports released following every single New Hampshire election, voter fraud is not an issue in our state.”

SB 3 also has the backing of Secretary of State William Gardner, a Democrat. He said he doesn’t believe the bill places undue burdens on any voter. He was recently asked to sit on Trump’s voter fraud commission.

The bill also garnered interest from outside groups that spent money in the state to convince residents to contact their legislator to oppose the bill.

“As host of the first-in-the-nation primary, New Hampshire has the obligation to ensure our system is beyond reproach,” Sununu said in a statement. “This bill does exactly that and as such, I support SB 3 and commend the House of Representatives for their actions today.”

Democrats were also not happy about the passage of Senate Bill 66, legislation that defines a fetus at 20 weeks and beyond as a person for purposes of criminal prosecution of murder or other violent crimes.It contains an exemption for abortion. The bill passed 186-170.

Democrats tried several times during the session to table the bill, but those attempts failed. The bill was originally retained in the House Criminal Justice Committee a couple weeks again and lawmakers expected to work on it over the next few months. In a surprise move last week, Republicans reconsidered the bill and voted it ought to pass to the full House.

“Today, the House of Representatives passed a critical fix that allows prosecution of individuals who criminally end the life of a viable unborn baby,” Sununu said. “It provides security and addresses injustice for women who may have been in abusive situations that resulted in the death of a fetus.”

The bill will also go back to the Senate to concur on a House amendment and then on to Sununu’s desk, if approved.

There was a bright spot for Democrats when the House overwhelmingly passed Senate Bill 191 to fund full-day kindergarten in the state. The final vote was 231 to 100.

Approximately $1,100 per pupil would be sent to school districts for the program with the funds coming through revenues from Keno, the electronic bingo game, which is currently illegal in New Hampshire.

“The House of Representatives deserves high praise for moving full-day kindergarten forward and recognizing that this is a priority for many families in both considering the quality of a community’s public education and in their decision-making process when choosing a place to raise their children,” Sununu said.

The bill heads back to the Senate, which has historically rejected Keno. Democrats blasted the Senate budget for not funding full-day kindergarten in its proposal, but it’s not clear if tying Keno revenues to the program will deter it in the Senate.

“This bill is a long-overdue recognition of those benefits, and a signal to working families and the business community that we understand our obligation to offer all New Hampshire children the opportunity for a high quality education,” Shurtleff said. “Support of full day public kindergarten is a top priority for House Democrats, and I am pleased that the Republican majority has joined us in recognizing the benefit of this investment.”

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

Sign up for NH Journal’s must-read morning political newsletter.

NH SOS Bill Gardner Is a Democrat. His Decision to Join Trump’s Voting Commission Shocks His Own Party.

New Hampshire Secretary of State William ‘Bill’ Gardner is widely revered as a bipartisan state official. He has to be since he’s the longest-running secretary of state in the nation and is reelected to his post by an overwhelming majority of Republicans and Democrats alike.

And he takes his job very seriously. He’s in charge of the state department that oversees all general elections, primary elections, voter registration, and recounts within the state, including the First-in-the-Nation primary. With claims of voter fraud in the 2016 election being discussed often by President Donald Trump, Gardner has played a more active role in politics than simply overseeing elections. He’s become a fierce advocate for keeping New Hampshire’s primary status and for tightening voter laws to make sure Granite State voters are the only people voting in the state’s elections.

With that last issue, he’s siding with Republicans who are trying to get a bill passed this legislative session that would define the differences between “residency” and “domicile.” Yet, Gardner is actually a Democrat. He began his career in New Hampshire politics as a Democratic state representative before he was elected secretary of state in 1976 by the Legislature, and he has shown over the years that he’s not afraid to stand up to members of his own party for what he believes is right.

“We’re not denying anyone who shows up at the polls to be able to vote; we’re just saying we want to be able to let everyone know these votes are valid and true,” Gardner told lawmakers when Senate Bill 3, a voting reform bill, was introduced in March.

Democrats and outside groups are pushing the narrative that the GOP bill is a form of voter suppression and would especially discourage college students from voting. But Gardner said he would not support legislation if he thought it would hurt voter turnout.

In fact, he’s so serious about voter integrity that he agreed to join Trump’s national commission to review voting registration and voting processes used in federal elections. Trump ordered the creation of the Commission on Election Integrity that will be chaired by Vice President Mike Pence and co-chaired by Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach.

“There is a reason I’m doing this,” he told WMUR. “I care a lot about this. I’ve spent my whole life dealing with it, and it’s too bad that over half of the people in the country feel that there is vote fraud. Let’s find out why.”

Earlier this year, Trump claimed he lost the popular vote in the November election because “millions” of people voted illegally. He said that he lost New Hampshire’s four electoral votes because “thousands” of people crossed the Massachusetts border “on buses” to vote illegally.

Gardner disagreed with the president, saying there was no widespread election fraud in the state, but there were a few cases of people voting in New Hampshire who shouldn’t have in previous elections.

In 2014, Gardner said he saw illegal voting with his own eyes.

“We have drive-by voting,” he told the New Hampshire Union Leader. “The people that ran the polling place called me over, and said they had three people who didn’t know whether they could vote, and they wanted me to answer the questions. So I go over, there were two young men and a young woman, and they were AmeriCorps [volunteers].”

The woman was from Washington state and said she missed the deadline, but “really wanted to vote.”

“She said she was going back to Washington state the first of December. I said, well that should answer it for yourself as to whether this is now your home,” Gardner said.

She did not ultimately vote, but the two men did. He said he is essentially powerless in these situations unless the Legislature decides to act.

Under SB 3, they allow the secretary of state’s office to investigate a voter registrant’s information if local supervisors are unable to verify a voter’s domicile.

Looking at voter fraud or voter integrity (depending on who you’re talking to) is something Gardner has been wanting to look into for a while. When Republicans introduced a similar bill in the Legislature  in 2015, former Democratic Gov. Maggie Hassan vetoed it, even though Gardner gave it his approval. He was also in favor of instituting a photo ID law when casting a ballot.

Democrats in the state are unhappy with Trump’s new commission, and are surprised that Gardner would agree to participate. The American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire called it a “sham” and a “kangaroo commission.”

“Signing this piece of paper will not make Mr. Trump’s false statements about voter fraud true,” said ACLU-NH Executive Director Devon Chaffee. “Our expectation is that, while on this commission, Secretary Gardner will only join conclusions in the commission’s final report that support voting rights and are based on actual proven facts, not unsupported speculation.”

House Democratic Leader Steve Shurtleff is calling on Gardner to assure that New Hampshire taxpayers are not paying for his travel or accommodation when he works on the commission.

“In addition, I would hope that your state time is not used in the pursuit of your work for the commission,” he wrote in a Friday letter. “As you are well aware, many Democrats and Republicans in New Hampshire believe that there is no validity to President Trump’s claims that there was voter fraud in NH. It is my hope that you will bear this in mind when presenting information or otherwise engaging your time on this commission.”

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

Sign up for NH Journal’s must-read morning political newsletter.

Progressive Outside Groups Weigh In on New Hampshire Voting Rights Bill

Outside groups often funnel money into states during an election, but many New Hampshire residents were probably hoping it would be some time before they again face the onslaught of more political ads. Yet, two progressive groups are currently spending money in New Hampshire, trying to influence how lawmakers decide on a voting rights bill that would tighten the state’s voter ID and registration laws.

The latest group, Let America Vote, made a five-figure digital ad buy in the Granite State at the end of March targeting Sen. Kevin Avard, R-Nashua, to change his vote on Senate Bill 3.

Senate Bill 3 was introduced by Sen. Regina Birdsell, R-Hampstead, to address concerns that due to New Hampshire’s “lax” voting laws, people who aren’t living in the state, or are only temporarily here, are voting in New Hampshire elections. Republicans want to tighten the process, but Democrats have dubbed the bill as a form of voter suppression. The Senate passed the bill on March 30 on a party line vote, 14-9, with Avard voting for the legislation.

The bill tackles the complex issue of “domicile” versus “residence.” 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 want to make clear who can and cannot vote in the state.

Democrats are pushing the narrative that the bill would prevent college students and military members who are “temporarily” in the state from voting in elections when it’s their right to cast their ballot. That’s the message Let America Vote wants residents to hear, so they can encourage their lawmakers from moving the bill forward.

Republican lawmakers and New Hampshire Republican Party Chairman Jeanie Forrester are pushing back, saying it will not stop college students or military members from voting.

Let America Vote is a new group that formed in February 2017 under the leadership of Jason Kander. The former Democratic Senate candidate gave Republican U.S. Sen. Roy Blunt a run for his money in the Missouri Senate race, which was one of the most watched races in the country. Blunt beat Kander — 49.2 to 46.4 percent.

Kander didn’t stay quiet after losing the election, though. With his new organization, he focuses on states that are trying to suppress voting rights.

Let America Vote recently announced they were launching three new voting rights ads in Georgia’s 6th Congressional District special election, in Virginia to oppose a Republican plan to overturn Democratic Gov. Terry McAuliffe’s veto of a bill that would require a photo copy of a state-issued ID included with absentee ballots, and in New Hampshire to oppose SB 3, “which could strip voting rights from college students and would allow elections officers to visit people’s homes to check in on residents just because they voted.”

Kander penned an op-ed for The Nashua Telegraph on Sunday, writing that Republicans are trying to suppress Democratic voters so they can win in future elections.

“For decades, some Republicans across the country have gotten away with passing deliberate voter suppression laws by rebranding them as efforts to fight against voter fraud,” he wrote. “There is more to this agenda than simply suppressing the vote. Not coincidentally, Republicans are pushing this bill just months after New Hampshire Democrats won both a U.S. Senate seat and the presidential vote in the 2016 election. Senate Bill 3 will tip the scales against Democrats where they’ve have won by razor-thin margins.”

Yet, it’s been noted by several right-wing bloggers and members of State House press corp that progressive outside groups seem to be very interested in this bill. New Hampshire Democrats often decry when outside money for Republicans pour into the state, but now, they have publicly applauded these groups focused on voting rights.

Priorities USA, a pro-Democratic group, launched digital ads earlier in March targeting Republican senators on the Election Law Committee to defeat the bill before it went to the Senate.

The ads targeted Sen. James Gray, R-Rochester and Sen. Andy Sanborn, R-Bedford, both cosponsors of the bill, and Birdsell, author of the bill and chair of the committee.

“Hmmm — liberal Democrats from outside New Hampshire trying to influence the outcome of our democratic process. Sounds familiar,” said NHGOP senior adviser Patrick Hynes to WMUR when Priorities USA launched their ads.

Priorities USA is known nationally for its focus on voting rights. The fundraising arm of the organization, Priorities USA Action, was the top super PAC supporting Democratic president candidate Hillary Clinton in 2016 and was the main money driver for former President Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign.

The group also said it urged voters to call N.H. House Speaker Shawn Jasper’s office about voting rights.

The bill now moves to the House Election Law Committee, which will hear public testimony again before the bill moves on to the full House for a vote. It can be expected that these outside groups, and possibly others, will also continue their campaign to kill the bill.

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

Sign up for NH Journal’s must-read morning political newsletter.