How this headline may connect to industries in New Hampshire. Technical scores are below — click any ? for what a metric means.
Federal judge strikes down NH.A federal judge in New Hampshire on Thursday ruled the state's 2024 law requiring first-time voters in the state to provide proof of U.S.citizenship when registering to vote is unconstitutional.The ruling by U.S.District Court Judge Samantha Elliott on HB 1569 is being viewed as a strong rebuke of the Republican-backed policy, considered by voting rights advocates to be one of the nation’s most restrictive laws regarding U.S.citizenship and the right to vote.“New Hampshire’s interest in election integrity cannot justify the burden on New Hampshire voters based on the evidence in this case,” said Elliott in her 98-page ruling, released late Thursday.A lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of New Hampshire and Ropes & Gray LLP on behalf of plaintiffs the Coalition for Open Democracy, the League of Women Voters of New Hampshire, The Forward Foundation and several individual voters was the subject of a nine-day trial in February.The lawsuit challenged what plaintiffs termed HB 1569’s “needless barriers to voting,” including barring eligible voters from attesting to their citizenship under penalty of perjury on a sworn affidavit.In addition to declaring the law unconstitutional, Elliott’s ruling blocked its use in future elections, including the 2026 midterms and September primary.The new law kicked in for town meetings and municipal elections in 2025, and would have impacted a much larger pool of potential voters this fall during state and federal elections.“Today’s ruling is a victory for all Granite State voters,” said Henry Klementowicz, deputy legal director of the ACLU of New Hampshire, in a statement.“New Hampshire’s elections have always been safe, secure, and accurate — and this law could have unconstitutionally and needlessly prevented thousands of eligible voters from casting a ballot.“Making it harder to vote is a clear attack on one of our most fundamental of rights, and this law is consigned to the dustbin of history where it belongs,” he added.House Election Law Chairman Ross Berry, R-Weare, responded to the ruling by saying he’s “not surprised that an unelected judge 'appointed' by the autopen in 2021 would push far-left Democratic policies on the people of New Hampshire.” The U.S.Senate confirmed Elliott's nomination, 62-37, with 12 Republicans voting for her in December 2021.“The vast majority of Granite Staters support common sense election integrity laws,” Berry said in a statement.“This isn't the first time a progressive judge has ignored the law and precedent to push a political agenda.Democrats know their policies are deeply unpopular in the Granite State — that is why they must rely on unelected far-left judges to force their ideology onto voters.” During a nine-day trial in U.S.District Court in February, Assistant Attorney General Catherine Denny said voting rights groups failed to offer proof that residents who, due to these changes, were prevented from casting a ballot.“The local election claims are purely theoretical,” Denny said in her opening argument for the bench trial.On Friday, a spokesman for the New Hampshire Department of Justice said they are “disappointed” with the court’s decision and are “carefully reviewing” the order.“HB 1569 represents a common-sense approach to voter registration and election administration designed to protect the integrity of our elections,” the statement said.“The New Hampshire Department of Justice has an obligation to defend the laws enacted by our elected representatives, and we intend to pursue an appeal in this matter.” For decades until late November 2024, a person registering to vote who did not have a photo ID or other documents to prove their age, identity, domicile or citizenship could sign a sworn statement at the polls to cast a ballot.HB 1569, signed by then-Gov.Chris Sununu, did away with two affidavits, one from the voter who could have sworn they were eligible to vote and a second affidavit the voter could have submitted when someone at the polls challenged that voter’s eligibility.The voting rights groups maintained hundreds of voters were turned away at municipal elections and told to bring back the documents proving their eligibility.In her ruling, Elliott said removal of the Qualified Voter Affidavit form in 2024 made it harder for some to vote.“A sworn affidavit capable of exposing an affiant to criminal prosecution is a method of proving citizenship and not an exception to that requirement,” Elliott wrote.“Moreover, the evidence shows that it is the only method of proof available to a significant number of New Hampshire voters.” During the trial, Denny said the state’s interest in adopting the law was to promote election integrity, increase voter confidence and deal with limited state resources, adding the state has a seven-year backlog of investigations into election law complaints.Denny argued 98% of eligible residents have proof of citizenship, which under the law can be a passport, naturalization papers or a birth certificate.According to Elliott’s decision, the law "constitutes an unjustifiable burden on the right to vote in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments,” “does little, if anything, to further the state’s interests,” and also “violates voters’ rights to procedural due process.” “This court decision is a victory for every Granite State voter and their ability to vote in this year’s primary and midterm elections,” said Olivia Zink, executive director of Open Democracy NH.“This is especially important for eligible soon-to-be voters who are graduating high school this year, registering to vote for the first time, and who may not have a copy of their birth certificate.This decision ensures they retain access to the ballot.” In 2020, a federal court set aside as unconstitutional a similar law Kansas had adopted to require proof of citizenship prior to voting.