CONCORD — The Attorney General’s Office is expected to appeal a Strafford County Superior Court ruling blocking a new voter registration law from taking effect.

The petition for an interlocutory appeal to the Supreme Court on Judge John Lewis’ preliminary decision is expected to be filed by the end of the week.

The new law requires people who register to vote to be domiciled in the state and to be informed they will need to register their autos here and apply for a New Hampshire driver’s license within 60 days.

On Monday, Lewis wrote: “The state offers no compelling justification for this paragraph, which, again, presents an inaccurate expression of the law and has a clear harmful effect on the exercise of voting rights and education connected therewith.”

Lewis’ ruling noted the distinction between the legal definition of domicile and residency.

House Speaker William O’Brien said Tuesday Lewis did not understand that Senate Bill 318 made the definition of domicile and residency synonymous.

“The law says you cannot be both a resident of another state and domiciled here in this state,” O’Brien said. “We’re not saying people domiciled here can’t vote. They can, but when they do, they become residents of New Hampshire.”

He said the concept is similar to that expressed in the law from the 1970s to 2007, when the wording was changed in what O’Brien described as a radical departure from past practices.

The 2007 version stated: “A person’s claim of domicile for voting purposes shall not be conclusive of the person’s residency for any other legal purpose.”

That clause was removed in Senate Bill 318, O’Brien said.

Under the law passed in 2007, each individual could declare his or her own residency, he said, rather than be required to perform activities such as registering a car or holding a driver’s license from New Hampshire.

If people can determine their residency, they can live here. but declare they live in another state to avoid New Hampshire’s tax or motor vehicle laws or other residency requirements, O’Brien said.

“I’m sure all those engineers living in the Silicon Valley would like to be residents of New Hampshire or Florida,” O’Brien said, referring to two states without an income tax.

“I’m confident the Supreme Court will see what the legislature did was make residency the same as domicile,” O’Brien said.

The Supreme Court will have to agree to take up the appeal.

Senate President Peter Bragdon said the Senate and House are working together to make sure they will have an opportunity to make their arguments before the court.

He used the example of a Nebraska resident who is a college student in New Hampshire with a car registered in Nebraska and insurance from Nebraska.

The student received a scholarship based on being a Nebraska resident, but wants to vote here.

“If they are a resident of another state,” Bragdon said, “they ought to be voting by absentee ballot.”

When asked about the definitions of residency and domicile, Bragdon said: “That level of detail I’m not sure of.”

Supporters of the law passed this year when the legislature overrode Gov. John Lynch’s veto said people who vote in the state ought to be domiciled here, while opponents called it an attempt to stop college students who are not from New Hampshire from voting.

The American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire and the League of Women Voters filed the challenge on behalf of four out-of-state college students.

The groups argued the law is a blatant attempt to prevent college students from voting because it refers to domicile and residence as having the same meaning, when they have different legal definitions.

Lewis directed the Secretary of State’s Office to reissue voter registration forms without the statement on auto registration and license requirements.

The state will have to inform election officials throughout the state they have to use the new registration form.

- - - - - - - -

Garry Rayno may be reached at grayno@unionleader.com.