老澳门开奖结果

CONCORD, NH 鈥� Today, the New Hampshire Supreme Court struck down a controversial 2012 New Hampshire law which added language to the state鈥檚 voter registration form that threatened to disenfranchise voters who live in this state. The 老澳门开奖结果 of New Hampshire (老澳门开奖结果-NH) brought the case on behalf of three voters. The voters were represented by 老澳门开奖结果-NH cooperating attorneys William E. Christie and Benjamin Siracusa Hillman of Shaheen & Gordon, PA and Alan J. Cronheim of Sisti Law Office, as well as 老澳门开奖结果-NH Legal Director Gilles Bissonnette.

In the Supreme Court鈥檚 opinion鈥攚hich was authored by the Court as a whole鈥攖he Court made clear that the challenged language was unreasonable and would create a chilling effect on voting rights in New Hampshire. The Court ruled: 鈥淏ecause the challenged language is confusing and inaccurate, and because, as the trial court found, it could cause an otherwise qualified voter not to register to vote in New Hampshire, we hold that, as a matter of law, the burden it imposes upon the fundamental right to vote is unreasonable.鈥�

鈥淭he Court鈥檚 decision today is a victory for all voters in New Hampshire,鈥� said attorney William Christie. 鈥淚n striking down this unreasonably burdensome law, the Supreme Court has acknowledged that constitutional rights, especially the most fundamental right to vote, are essential to a functioning democracy."

In June 2012, the New Hampshire legislature, overriding Governor John Lynch鈥檚 veto, passed Senate Bill 318, which added the challenged language to New Hampshire鈥檚 voter registration form. This added language requires those registering to vote to sign an affidavit agreeing that they are subject to the state鈥檚 residency laws. But, in order to vote in New Hampshire, a voter need not actually meet the definition of legal 鈥渞esidency.鈥� Instead, to vote in New Hampshire, one needs to be 鈥渄omiciled鈥� here. This distinction matters because the definition of 鈥渞esident鈥� is very strict, as it also requires an intent to live in New Hampshire for the 鈥渋ndefinite future鈥� (above and beyond actually living in the State). If legal 鈥渞esidency鈥� was the criteria to vote, thousands of people who live in New Hampshire would be disenfranchised simply because they may have plans鈥攑erhaps years in the future鈥攖o leave the state.

For example, imposing such a 鈥渞esidency鈥� condition on the right to vote鈥攊.e., a condition that one have an intent to live in New Hampshire for the 鈥渋ndefinite future鈥濃�攚ould disenfranchise many college students who live in New Hampshire, an executive living in Manchester who has a firm intention to retire to his Florida cottage at age 65, a hospital resident living in Hanover with a career plan requiring her to spend three years in New Hampshire to complete her medical training, and a member of the Navy who lives in Portsmouth but knows that she will be transferred elsewhere in two years. These individuals who live in New Hampshire possess no less knowledge, intelligence, or commitment to this state than those who meet the definition of legal 鈥渞esidency.鈥� Moreover, they have nowhere else to vote.

What does it mean to be 鈥渄omiciled鈥� in New Hampshire for voting purposes? It means that a voter must, more than any other place, have 鈥渆stablished a physical presence鈥� in New Hampshire and manifest 鈥渁n intent to maintain a single continuous presence鈥� here 鈥渇or domestic, social, and civil purposes relevant to participating in democratic self-government.鈥� RSA 654:1, I. It does not mean that anyone can vote in New Hampshire simply if they want to or simply because they are in this state on election day. In other words, one is domiciled in New Hampshire for voting purposes if that person has a continuous physical presence here and treats this state as 鈥渉ome.鈥�

The New Hampshire Supreme Court found that the language added to the voter registration form 鈥渋naccurately states New Hampshire law鈥� because it 鈥渋nforms a potential voter that, upon declaring New Hampshire as her domicile, she is 鈥榮ubject to the laws of the state of New Hampshire which apply to all residents, including laws requiring a driver to register a motor vehicle and apply for a New Hampshire[] driver鈥檚 license within 60 days of becoming a resident.鈥欌�� The Court explained that this statement is inaccurate because 鈥淸a] person who has only a New Hampshire domicile, but who does not meet the statutory definition of 鈥榬esident,鈥� is not 鈥榮ubject to the laws of the state of New Hampshire which apply to all residents.鈥欌��

The Supreme Court also concluded that 鈥渢he challenged language is confusing because it is susceptible of different interpretations.鈥� In support, the Court cited the fact that the State鈥檚 interpretation that the challenged language did not change the definition of 鈥渄omicile鈥� and 鈥渞esidency鈥� actually conflicted with the public statements of certain members of the New Hampshire House of Representatives after litigation commenced.

Finally, the Court rejected the State鈥檚 purported justification for the law鈥攖o comply with the federal Help American Vote Act (HAVA). The Court noted that this justification 鈥渁ppears to have been 鈥榠nvented post hoc in response to [this] litigation.鈥欌�� The Court added: 鈥淸E]ven if complying with HAVA had been the State鈥檚 actual interest in enacting [the law], the State has failed to establish that the challenged language is actually necessary or that it actually addresses that interest.鈥� Thus, the Court concluded, 鈥渘ot only has the State failed to establish that the challenged language is necessary to comply with HAVA, but it also has failed to demonstrate that the challenged language actually addresses HAVA compliance.鈥�

This decision follows the decision of two Superior Court judges who also concluded that the challenged language was inaccurate, confusing, and unconstitutional.

鈥淭oday鈥檚 ruling acknowledges that elections should be free, fair, and accessible to all people in a democracy,鈥� said Gilles Bissonnette. 鈥淏y protecting voting as a fundamental right, the decision affirms that all New Hampshire voters should have the opportunity to participate equally in the democratic process.鈥�

You can view the Supreme Court decision