CONCORD — Secretary of State William Gardner on Wednesday submitted an affidavit that appears to back new voter registration requirements championed by Republican state legislators but opposed by those who say it could disenfranchise students.

The requirements would compel out-of-state students attending school in New Hampshire to declare their residency, register their cars and obtain a New Hampshire driver's license. Gardner wrote that state law does not provide any difference in the terms “domicile” or “residence.”

“It cannot be that non-residents can somehow claim domicile for voting purposes only and be able to change the foundation of New Hampshire and its government by voting for its lawmakers and proposed constitutional amendments on the ballot,” Gardner wrote.

Last week, state Superior Court Justice John M. Lewis issued a preliminary injunction blocking the new state requirement that people who register to vote must be domiciled in the state and must be informed that they will need to register their vehicles in New Hampshire and apply for a state driver's license within 60 days.

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, arguing the law is an attempt to prevent college students from voting. On Monday, the state Supreme Court agreed to assume jurisdiction of the case.

Lewis ordered Gardner to issue new voter registration forms without a paragraph that describes the vehicle registration and driver's license requirement and ordered Gardner to post a statement on the Secretary of State's website that out-of-state students do not need to obtain a driver's license to vote.

Gardner wrote that state law is consistent in its use of the term “resident” and that “all relevant statutes require domicile in the state and a current intent to remain.

He wrote that there is no difference in state law between the terms “domicile” and “residence,” and submitted as exhibits copies of laws passed in the early 1980s that made uniform such terms as “domicile,” “residence,” “resident” and “inhabitant.”

“To suggest that there is a separate definition of 'domicile' for voting purposes is wrong,” Gardner wrote.

The wording of the voter registration law has led to legal challenges that continue to grow more complicated. Attorney General Michael Delaney filed motions on behalf of the state asking Lewis and then the Supreme Court to take the case.

House Speaker Bill O'Brien is also seeking a stay on Lewis' order, but disagrees with Delaney's case. On Monday he filed a motion with the Supreme Court asking to intervene on behalf of the House of Representatives.

O'Brien, R-Mont Vernon, contends that Delaney is not presenting arguments the House wants to be used in an effort to support the voter registration law.

Gardner wrote that he believed that the plaintiffs and Lewis relied on the phrase “a person's claim of domicile for voting purposes shall not be conclusive of the person's residence for any other legal purpose.”

However, “this phrase was stricken from (state law),” in a law passed on Aug. 26, Gardner wrote. He wrote that those who rely on arguments that the Legislature failed to amend the definition of “domicile” for voting purposes are missing the bigger picture.

“In fact, as mentioned above, the language upon which Petitioners rely was not amended but rather completely removed from the law. In my view, this is an even stronger statement of legislative intent to have domicile equate to residency,” Gardner wrote.

tbuckland@unionleader.com