In a major loss against Republican-backed voter suppression in a key swing state, New Hampshire's Supreme Court blocked a lower-court ruling that struck down a law the GOP had passed in 2017 to impose additional residency restrictions on voters. The plaintiffs could still succeed on the merits at a later date, but that’s little solace for voters in 2018.
This law was crafted to suppress the votes of Democratic-leaning college students after Republicans narrowly lost the 2016 presidential and Senate races, yet regained full control of state government. The law requires voters who register within 30 days of an election to provide additional documentation showing that they live day to day at the residence they claimed as their “domicile" and intend to do so long-term.
Voters who lack suitable documentation will be able to cast provisional ballots, but they still have to provide documents proving their residency meets the state’s new requirements at a later date. If they don’t, this law empowers state election officials to visit voters' homes and refer them to the office of Secretary of State Bill Gardner, who has had no qualms about backing these restrictions, for a potentially intimidating investigation. True to form, Gardner sided with Republicans to appeal to the high court.
Republicans passed this law after Donald Trump baselessly claimed last year that thousands of illegal voters were bused into New Hampshire to cast ballots, which he falsely asserted cost GOP Sen. Kelly Ayotte re-election in 2016. Despite the fact that this completely bogus conspiracy theory was shot down even by Republicans, Republican Gov. Chris Sununu himself also made the same brazenly fraudulent arguments just prior to that year's election.
Of course, this law is simply intended to make it more difficult for Democratic-leaning demographics to exercise their right to cast a ballot, like college students and young adults who are more likely to move frequently. Ironically, though, it could also unintentionally disenfranchise a group that tends to favor Republicans: active-duty military members who happen to be stationed in New Hampshire.
This court ruling is also a major defeat for preserving same-day voter registration. Since New Hampshire does not permit early voting, same-day registration is only available on Election Day itself. That means election officials will have to verify all the extra documents provided by new registrants at the same time they will be conducting what’s shaping up to be a historically high-turnout election. That likely will lead to longer wait times to vote—delays that could further hamper voters.
Unfortunately, state courts also upheld another GOP-backed restriction aimed at college students earlier this year by forcing those who are from out of state to obtain in-state residency. That effectively subjects out-of-state students to a poll tax by requiring them to obtain a New Hampshire driver’s license and car registration, despite judicial precedents that should have rendered both laws invalid. This latest ruling will make voting harder even for thousands in the Granite State who are originally from New Hampshire.
The order also demonstrates the importance for progressives to appoint or elect state supreme court justices who are strong allies of voting rights. Indeed, moderate former Democratic Gov. John Lynch’s appointees hold a three-to-two majority on the court, but the court unanimously stayed the lower court’s ruling by citing the imminent approach of next month’s election, a principle Republicans on the U.S. Supreme Court had no problem disregarding in a recent case that put North Dakota’s GOP-backed voter ID law into full effect.
