Annemarie Guare & a. v. State of New Hampshire, 167 N.H. 658

Background

Petitioners (college students and a League of Women Voters volunteer) challenged language added in 2012 to New Hampshire’s standard voter registration form that told registrants declaring New Hampshire domicile they were “subject 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’s license within 60 days of becoming a resident.”
Trial court issued a preliminary injunction in 2012 removing the language pending final resolution; later granted petitioners’ summary judgment and entered a permanent injunction holding the language violated Part I, Article 11 of the New Hampshire Constitution.
The State appealed solely the constitutional holding (not the injunction), arguing the language was accurate, nondiscriminatory, and justified (primarily by HAVA compliance).
Statutory context: “domicile” and “resident” have distinct definitions under New Hampshire law; a person may have domicile for voting without being a statutory resident who must, for example, obtain a NH driver’s license and register a vehicle within 60 days.
Petitioners presented evidence that the language was both inaccurate and confusing, causing at least some qualified voters to feel uncomfortable registering to vote.
The Supreme Court of New Hampshire affirmed, concluding the form language unreasonably burdened the right to vote and failed intermediate scrutiny (State also waived other asserted interests on appeal).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the challenged voter‑form language burdens the fundamental right to vote and what level of scrutiny applies	Guare et al.: language conflates “domicile” and “resident,” is inaccurate and confusing, and may deter qualified voters, so strict scrutiny applies	State: language is accurate, reasonable, nondiscriminatory; any burden is minimal so rational‑basis‑type review should apply	Court: language is inaccurate and confusing; burden is unreasonable; intermediate scrutiny applied (assuming not severe)
Whether the challenged language is consistent with NH law	Guare et al.: it misstates law by implying domiciliaries are subject to all resident laws	State: properly read, it simply warns domiciliaries they are subject to NH laws and alerts them about future resident obligations	Court: language explicitly says registrant is subject to laws “which apply to all residents,” which is inaccurate for domiciliaries who are not residents
Whether the State’s asserted interest in HAVA compliance justifies the language	Guare et al.: HAVA was not the legislature’s actual stated reason for the 2012 law; HAVA does not require this language	State: HAVA compliance justifies informing registrants about coordination with motor vehicle records etc.	Court: State’s HAVA justification was post hoc and, even if genuine, the State failed to show the language was necessary or actually addressed HAVA requirements
Whether the statute is facially invalid	Guare et al.: facially invalid because no circumstance exists where it would be a permissible, nondiscriminatory message on the form	State: argued language is lawful and permissible	Court: affirmed facial invalidity as violating Part I, Article 11; injunction affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Akins v. Sec’y of State, 154 N.H. 67 (2006) (establishes right to vote as fundamental and adopts Burdick balancing under NH Constitution)
Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (balancing test for evaluating burdens on voting rights)
Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442 (2008) (facial invalidation not warranted on mere possibility of voter confusion)
Ohio State Conference of N.A.A.C.P. v. Husted, 768 F.3d 524 (6th Cir.) (2014) (applies intermediate balancing where burden is significant but not severe)
Obama for America v. Husted, 697 F.3d 423 (6th Cir. 2012) (illustrates intermediate balancing approach and limits on abstract state interests)
Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181 (2008) (plurality and fractured opinions on levels of scrutiny for voting regulations)
Cmty. Res. for Justice v. City of Manchester, 154 N.H. 748 (2007) (intermediate scrutiny requires government to articulate specific, non‑post hoc interests)
Libertarian Party N.H. v. State, 154 N.H. 376 (2006) (example of permitting reasonable, nondiscriminatory election‑related burdens)
State v. Carter, 167 N.H. 161 (2014) (facial challenge standard: challenger must show no circumstances under which statute is valid)