CONCORD – A controversial 2017 voter registration law was struck down as unconstitutional by Hillsborough County Superior Court Judge David A. Anderson on Wednesday.
The challenge to SB 3 as it became known was filed by the League of Women Voters of New Hampshire, the Democratic Party and college students.
“(T)he court strikes down SB 3 as unconstitutional for unreasonably burdening the right to vote and violating equal protection,” Anderson wrote. The state is expected to appeal the ruling to the state Supreme Court.
Republican supporters of the law say it was necessary to protect the integrity of the state’s electoral process and make sure only residents vote.
But critics said it was meant to suppress voting, especially in college towns where many register on election day.
Before 2017, people didn’t need proof of residency to register to vote in New Hampshire. They could fill out a form with their address and sign an affidavit swearing it was true.
The new law required stricter proof of residency that critics saw as more complicated and intrusive. It also added additional penalties for illegal voting, which a judge had already put on hold pending the outcome of this case.
Anderson’s order was quickly praised by Democrats and just as quickly criticized by Republicans who said it was necessary to protect the integrity of the state’s electoral process.
Anderson said in his order that voter fraud is virtually non-existent in New Hampshire.
Anderson said the state’s overarching argument that the plaintiffs failed to identify any individual that was prevented from voting because of the implementation of SB 3 largely misses the point.
The problem is not that it creates a system that actively encourages voters to be turned away, he wrote.
“The burdens of SB 3 are more subtle. The new process establishes enough hurdles, the forms contain enough complexity, and the penalties present enough risk that they tend to dissuade a specific type of voter from even engaging with the process. In this regard, the state’s constant refrain that nobody was prevented from voting rings hollow.
“SB 3 does not stop someone at the polls from casting a ballot, it discourages them from showing up in the first place,” Anderson wrote.
Senate Election Law and Municipal Affairs Committee Chair Melanie Levesque, D-Brookline, said New Hampshire has a long and proud tradition of active political engagement.
“SB 3 did nothing to secure our elections and only served to make voting more challenging for specific populations of eligible voters,” Levesque said.
House Republican Leader Dick Hinch, R-Merrimack, and former Election Law Committee Chair Rep. Barbara Griffin, R-Goffstown, issued statements after the order was released.
“This opinion is extremely disappointing and is a blow to fair and secure elections in our state,” Hinch said. “SB3 was an important piece of legislation that sought to preserve New Hampshire’s electoral integrity by making sure that the right to vote is protected for all of the eligible voters.”
Hinch said New Hampshire has one of the highest voter participation rates in the nation, and SB3 did nothing to dissuade or confuse voters or cause delays at the polls.
Griffin said: “The Court relied on expert testimony that focused on anecdotal evidence rather than look at the fact that SB3 established reasonable measures that did not affect turnout or deny anyone the right to vote.”
