NASHUA – Voters are heading to the polls today to select new members to seats on both the Board of Aldermen and the Board of Education, along with determining if the Gate City will allow sports gambling.

Also, how local election officials in various cities and towns throughout New Hampshire decide the validity of the different forms of documentation voters present at the polls could very well result in “arbitrary enforcement” of a segment of the state’s new voter registration statute, a Superior Court judge ruled Monday.

Judge David A. Anderson therefore denied that portion of the state’s motion for summary judgment in the so-called SB 3 case, but he also granted the part of the motion in which the state argues that the statute is not unconstitutionally vague, as the plaintiffs claimed in their suit.

Anderson’s order comes about two years after members of the state Democratic Party, the League of Women Voters and individual voters filed suit after the Legislature’s passage of SB 3, officially known as the state’s voter residency requirement law.

The law was the result of legislation sponsored by 13 Republican state senators to tighten voter registration requirements, a movement that critics say amounted to voter suppression because it mostly targeted segments of the population who historically voted Democratic.

Gov. Chris Sununu signed the legislation into law in July 2017. It took effect Sept. 8.

At the time, Sununu claimed SB 3 represented “a modest change” to state election laws, and that it “does nothing more than ensure” that people registering to vote “present valid identification.”

Monday’s split decision ruling, meanwhile, happened to come down on the eve of the statewide municipal elections, but the legislation itself will almost certainly play a greater role in the upcoming presidential primary, which is currently scheduled – albeit tentatively – for Feb. 11.

In its motion for summary judgment, meanwhile, the state argued that if any issues were to arise concerning the wording on the registration form, election officials could simply change that wording on future forms.

That would solve the problem “without altering the language of the statute itself,” according to the state’s motion.

But while Anderson agreed, he also noted that “the issues identified by plaintiffs will likely persist regardless of the manner in which the voter registration form is drafted.”

Further, Anderson wrote, witnesses who testified during the course of the case pointed out that because local election officials “will be capable of exercising their discretion in deciding whether certain forms of documentation” are valid or not, such discretion could easily lead to arbitrary enforcement of the statute.

Without a “strict list” of acceptable forms of identification, Anderson wrote, one type of ID may be deemed acceptable at one polling location, but be rejected at another location.

Arbitrary enforcement, Anderson added, “is likely to be inevitable,” given the number of polling places and the wide range of ID forms election officials may see at the polls.

Dean Shalhoup may be reached at 594-1256, or dshalhoup@nashuatelegraph.com.

Newsletter