Ruling puts NH on front lines of voting rights war
Jul. 4—New Hampshire has advanced to the front lines of the national battle over voting rights, after the state Supreme Court set aside as unconstitutional a law that Republican leaders pushed to more closely align voter registration and residency.
The New Hampshire court's 4-0 ruling, which struck down the 2017 law, came Friday, a day after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld voting limits adopted in Arizona.
Some analysts had concluded the Supreme Court's strong language and 6-3 decision in the Arizona case set a higher bar for similar voting laws to be struck down.
Guy Cecil, national head of liberal interest group Priorities USA, seized on the New Hampshire decision as an encouraging sign.
"After the Supreme Court of the United States delivered a blow to the Voting Rights Act (on Thursday), I am hopeful that this ruling will instill confidence in voting rights advocates everywhere that the fight for fair, equitable ballot access is far from over," Cecil said. "I am confident that this ruling will be followed by others to expand and protect ballot access."
End Citizens United/Let America Vote, another liberal organization, tried to make New Hampshire's decision a rallying cry for an election-reform measure in Congress that has passed the House but stalled in the Senate.
"Thanks to the New Hampshire Supreme Court's decision and voting rights advocates, the people of New Hampshire, particularly young people in the state, are able to more freely exercise their right to vote," said Tiffany Miller, president of the organization. "But we know self-serving politicians won't stop attacking the freedom to vote, which is why it's imperative that Congress pass the For the People Act."
State Rep. Barbara Griffin, R-Goffstown, chairman of the House Election Laws Committee, said the state court's finding was frustrating, given the U.S. Supreme Court's decision.
"This decision is disappointing in light of the contrary finding from the Supreme Court of the United States in Brnovich v. DNC that the mere requirement of proving an individual has the constitutional standing to vote in an election is not unduly burdensome," Griffin said.
Sen. Regina Blaisdell, R-Hampstead, who authored the 2017 law, pledged to get to work to fix it.
"It is unfortunate our state's highest court ruled against this common-sense, anti-voter fraud provision. Using the court's decision as a guide, I look forward to filing new legislation in the fall that will continue to support voting integrity in New Hampshire, make it easy to access a ballot and also difficult to commit fraud," Blaisdell said.
Saw it coming
Former Rep. David Bates, a Windham Republican and a former chairman of the House election panel, was one of a handful of Republican lawmakers who voted against SB 3 four years ago.
"I really thought that they would lose in court because they had thrown this together without enough attention to detail when it comes to past court rulings. It's more than just about writing good legislation; it's about writing laws that will stand up," Bates said.
"It was a complete waste of time, and really a missed opportunity because at the time Republicans had taken control of all parts of government and had the chance to do it right."
State Democratic Party Chairman Raymond Buckley promised to make sure voters know it was Gov. Chris Sununu who championed a "voter suppression" law to discourage out-of-state college students and other new voters from registering to cast a ballot here.
"For years, Chris Sununu and the NH GOP have tried to make it harder for people to vote, and we're pleased that the New Hampshire Supreme Court found that SB3 was an unconstitutional, overly burdensome, and discriminatory bill meant to discourage eligible New Hampshire voters from casting their ballots," Buckley said.
House Deputy Democratic Leader David Cote of Nashua, a 20-term lawmaker, had no doubt the lawsuit would prevail.
"Democrats opposed SB3 from the moment it was introduced in the Legislature because it was clearly an unconstitutional attempt to restrict the ability of qualified voters to vote," Cote said.
"SB3 added no security to our elections and unconstitutionally created a separate class of voters with different qualifications."
The law required would-be voters to provide documents proving residency in New Hampshire. The bill's supporters argued the measure promoted confidence in the state's elections by ensuring only people who live here vote here.
The law created a new set of required forms for those registering to vote within 30 days of an election or on the day of an election without a photo ID or other documentation to prove residency.
They had until 30 days after the election to furnish documents. Those who failed to show proof of residency could face penalties.
What happens next?
The decision found that SB3 violated Part One, Article 11 of the state Constitution, because it created confusion for new voters and had the potential to produce long lines at polls, which would affect everyone trying to vote.
Supreme Court Chief Justice Gordon J. MacDonald, did not take part in the court's ruling since he was attorney general when he appealed this lawsuit to the high court.
House Speaker Sherman Packard, R-Londonderry, was upbeat about the prospects for lasting reform.
"While this outcome is not ideal, it does give the Legislature a renewed sense of purpose as we work together to ensure New Hampshire's elections remain fair with open transparency," Packard said.
The League of Women Voters had brought the suit, along with the state Democratic Party.
The League's president, Liz Tentarelli, said her group would keep watching.
"We must ensure that further attempts to restrict voting rights in New Hampshire will be curtailed by this ruling," Tentarelli said. "We will continue to be vigilant if more voter suppression bills move forward in committee hearings this fall."
Marc Elias, a national voting rights advocate lawyer who worked with the NHDP and other groups against NH GOP election reforms in the past, said the U.S. Supreme Court's Arizona ruling shouldn't discourage leaders of voting rights movements in other states.
"If anyone thinks that this decision will stop us from fighting for voting rights, they are wrong," Elias wrote on Twitter.
"We will fight harder with every tool available to protect voters from suppressive laws."
