Home » News » Politics
October 09. 2012 4:20PM
NH Supreme Court: New voter registration requirements likely on hold for Nov. 6 election
CONCORD -- The state Supreme Court Tuesday denied the Attorney General's Office's emergency motion to stay a lower court order that blocked new voter registration requirements that became law this year, saying those new requirements will probably not be in effect for the Nov. 6 election.
The order comes eight days after the high court agreed to take expedited jurisdiction in the dispute over the new requirements, which opponents argue could prevent college students from voting in the state.
But the Supreme Court has now decided to hold off on hearing the appeal of the lower court's preliminary decision blocking those requirements until the lower court completes its hearings and rules on the overall case.
Tuesday's order came on a 3-2 vote, with Associate Justices Gary Hicks, Carol Ann Conboy and James Bassett writing that the Supreme Court will not schedule its own proceedings on the issue until there is a final ruling by the lower, Superior Court.
The three justices said the Attorney General's Office “has not carried its burden of demonstrating...the Superior Court erred” by blocking the new requirements.
Attorney General Michael Delaney had hoped to have the dispute resolved quickly enough for a decision on whether the new requirements should remain in effect to be made in time for the Nov. 6 election.
But the court majority said:
“Because of the complexities of the issues raised and the imminence of the upcoming election, we think it is unrealistic to expect that this case could be concluded in both the Superior Court and this court prior to the election.”
The new law at issue requires those who register to vote to be informed that they must register their vehicles in New Hampshire and apply for a state driver's license within 60 days. The issue is whether residents should have certain rights that those who are only “domiciled” in the state do not have.
The constitutionality of the law was challenged in Strafford County Superior Court by the American Civil Liberties Union and the League of Women Voters.
The Superior Court blocked the new requirements pending a full hearing and final order on constitutionality.
Superior Court Judge John Lewis ordered Gardner to remove language from voter registration forms distributed in August that says: “In declaring New Hampshire as my domicile, I am subject to the laws of the state of New Hampshire, including laws requiring a driver to register a motor vehicle and apply for a New Hampshire driver's license within 60 days of becoming a resident.”
The voter registration dispute is not related to the new voter ID requirements also passed by lawmakers earlier this year. Those require anyone voting to show a driver's license or other acceptable identification at the polling place on Nov. 6. Those who do not have such an ID will be asked to sign a “challenged voter affidavit” but will still be allowed to vote.
Tuesday's ruling is a victory for those who contend the new registration law disenfranchises voters, including college students who came to New Hampshire from out-of-state and want to vote in New Hampshire.
Supreme Court Chief Justice Linda Dalianis and Associate Justice Robert Lynn dissented from the Tuesday ruling, writing:
“Because a duly enacted statute carries a presumption of constitutionality and because, without reaching the merits, we regard it as an open question whether the petitioners will ultimately prevail, we would grant the state's emergency motion to stay.”
House Speaker William O'Brien, R-Mont Vernon, is also trying to intervene in the case at both the Superior Court and Supreme Court levels, contending the Attorney General is not accurately reflecting the intent of the House in his arguments.
Attorney General Delaney's office opposed O'Brien's attempts and both courts are still weighing O'Brien's motions.
O'Brien on Tuesday filed a response to Delaney's objection, saying “there is no meaningful difference between the Attorney General's proposed interpretation” of the law and the interpretation of the ACLU and LWV.
“Both would render (the law) a nullity,” House legal counsel Edward Mosca wrote.
“The real dispute in this case is between, on the one hand, the General Court and Secretary of State Gardner, who seek to have the law interpreted to mean what it says and argue that this plain-meaning interpretation is constitutional, and on the other hand the petitioners and the Attorney General,” Mosca wrote on behalf of O'Brien and the House Republican majority.
The order comes eight days after the high court agreed to take expedited jurisdiction in the dispute over the new requirements, which opponents argue could prevent college students from voting in the state.
But the Supreme Court has now decided to hold off on hearing the appeal of the lower court's preliminary decision blocking those requirements until the lower court completes its hearings and rules on the overall case.
Tuesday's order came on a 3-2 vote, with Associate Justices Gary Hicks, Carol Ann Conboy and James Bassett writing that the Supreme Court will not schedule its own proceedings on the issue until there is a final ruling by the lower, Superior Court.
The three justices said the Attorney General's Office “has not carried its burden of demonstrating...the Superior Court erred” by blocking the new requirements.
Attorney General Michael Delaney had hoped to have the dispute resolved quickly enough for a decision on whether the new requirements should remain in effect to be made in time for the Nov. 6 election.
But the court majority said:
“Because of the complexities of the issues raised and the imminence of the upcoming election, we think it is unrealistic to expect that this case could be concluded in both the Superior Court and this court prior to the election.”
The new law at issue requires those who register to vote to be informed that they must register their vehicles in New Hampshire and apply for a state driver's license within 60 days. The issue is whether residents should have certain rights that those who are only “domiciled” in the state do not have.
The constitutionality of the law was challenged in Strafford County Superior Court by the American Civil Liberties Union and the League of Women Voters.
The Superior Court blocked the new requirements pending a full hearing and final order on constitutionality.
Superior Court Judge John Lewis ordered Gardner to remove language from voter registration forms distributed in August that says: “In declaring New Hampshire as my domicile, I am subject to the laws of the state of New Hampshire, including laws requiring a driver to register a motor vehicle and apply for a New Hampshire driver's license within 60 days of becoming a resident.”
The voter registration dispute is not related to the new voter ID requirements also passed by lawmakers earlier this year. Those require anyone voting to show a driver's license or other acceptable identification at the polling place on Nov. 6. Those who do not have such an ID will be asked to sign a “challenged voter affidavit” but will still be allowed to vote.
Tuesday's ruling is a victory for those who contend the new registration law disenfranchises voters, including college students who came to New Hampshire from out-of-state and want to vote in New Hampshire.
Supreme Court Chief Justice Linda Dalianis and Associate Justice Robert Lynn dissented from the Tuesday ruling, writing:
“Because a duly enacted statute carries a presumption of constitutionality and because, without reaching the merits, we regard it as an open question whether the petitioners will ultimately prevail, we would grant the state's emergency motion to stay.”
House Speaker William O'Brien, R-Mont Vernon, is also trying to intervene in the case at both the Superior Court and Supreme Court levels, contending the Attorney General is not accurately reflecting the intent of the House in his arguments.
Attorney General Delaney's office opposed O'Brien's attempts and both courts are still weighing O'Brien's motions.
O'Brien on Tuesday filed a response to Delaney's objection, saying “there is no meaningful difference between the Attorney General's proposed interpretation” of the law and the interpretation of the ACLU and LWV.
“Both would render (the law) a nullity,” House legal counsel Edward Mosca wrote.
“The real dispute in this case is between, on the one hand, the General Court and Secretary of State Gardner, who seek to have the law interpreted to mean what it says and argue that this plain-meaning interpretation is constitutional, and on the other hand the petitioners and the Attorney General,” Mosca wrote on behalf of O'Brien and the House Republican majority.