×
×
homepage logo
LOGIN
SUBSCRIBE

State files appeal of judge’s April ruling that GOP-backed legislation that tightens voter-registration laws is unconstitutional

By Dean Shalhoup - Senior Staff Writer | May 12, 2020

Telegraph file photo by DEAN SHALHOUP The teams of attorneys representing the state and the plaintiffs in the SB 3 voter registration case fill almost all the chairs brought in on either side of the courtroom for a hearing earlier this year. The state has appealed the judge's April ruling.

CONCORD – Lawyers for Secretary of State William Gardner and Attorney General Gordon MacDonald are appealing Superior Court Judge David Anderson’s April ruling that strikes down the majority of the legislation that tightens the state’s voter-registration laws.

In the appeal, filed late Friday with the Supreme Court of New Hampshire, Gardner, MacDonald and their lawyers ask the high court justices to review, and rule upon, eight points on which they feel Anderson may have erred in the 55-page ruling he issued April 8.

The queries range from whether a case Anderson cited as precedent should be overruled and whether the plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence of widespread voter confusion caused by the legislation, known as SB 3, to whether Anderson erred in “interpreting the statutory registration forms in SB 3 as being too complex and misleading,” according to the appeal.

SB 3 was first raised during the 2017 legislative session, when a group of 13 Republican lawmakers who signed on as sponsors called the bill necessary “to preserve New Hampshire’s electoral integrity” and protect voters’ rights.

Gov. Chris Sununu in July 2017 signed the bill into law, and it went into effect Sept. 8.

A short time later, however, widespread opposition to the bill prompted the League of Women Voters of New Hampshire and the state Democratic Party, along with a series of individual voters, to file suit to challenge the constitutionality of the law.

In his April ruling, Anderson found in favor of the plaintiffs on counts I and III of the four-count lawsuit, while ruling in favor of the state on count IV. Anderson had dismissed Count II at an earlier hearing.

On Count I, according to the ruling, Anderson agreed with the plaintiffs that SB 3 violates the state constitution by “burdening the right to vote” of certain citizens.

He also agreed with the plaintiffs on Count III, in which they argued that SB 3 violates prospective voters’ right to equal protection,

Anderson ruled for the state on Count IV when he denied the plaintiffs’ claims that SB 3 should be “void for vagueness.”

As for the appeal, which is categorized as mandatory under state judicial law, the Supreme Court will take up the matter within a couple of months time. The time frame for a ruling to come down varies from case to case.

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

Newsletter

Join thousands already receiving our daily newsletter.

Interests
Are you a paying subscriber to the newspaper? *