2025 DNH 85
D.N.H.2025Background
- Plaintiffs (three organizations and five individuals) challenge New Hampshire HB 1569, which, as of November 2024, eliminated options for voters to register or vote with affidavits as proof of citizenship or eligibility, requiring documentary evidence instead.
- Plaintiffs claim that this law imposes unconstitutional burdens on the right to vote, violates due process, and violates equal protection rights under the U.S. Constitution.
- Defendants (state officials) moved to dismiss, arguing plaintiffs lack standing and fail to state plausible claims.
- Key aspects: the law's impact on prospective voters who lack immediate access to documentary proof and on organizations whose core activities involve voter registration and education.
- The court considered organizational standing under Havens Realty and clarified recent Supreme Court signals on such theory.
- The court found partial standing for organizational and minor plaintiffs; none for the broad equal protection count; and addressed only claims that survived standing arguments in its merits review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing (Organizational Plaintiffs) | Law directly impairs voter registration/education work, draining resources per Havens Realty | No direct injury; mere issue advocacy/education isn't enough (Alliance for Hippocratic Med.) | Organizations have standing for some claims where core activities are directly impaired |
| Standing (Individual Plaintiffs) | Law creates imminent barriers for some individual plaintiffs to register or vote | Injuries are speculative, hypothetical, or based on third-party choices | Minor plaintiffs have standing for Count I; others' claims too speculative for standing |
| Elimination of Qualified/Challenged Voter Affidavits (Merits) | Law burdens right to vote and is not justified under Anderson-Burdick balancing | Any burden is minimal, mitigated by state's regulatory interests in election integrity | Sufficient burdens plausibly alleged; merits claims survive under Anderson-Burdick framework |
| Procedural Due Process | Eliminating Challenged Voter Affidavit denies meaningful process before vote deprivation | Appeal to state court offers sufficient process | Complaint plausibly alleges process is inadequate; procedural due process claim survives |
| Equal Protection | Law results in arbitrary, disparate treatment due to vague standards and moderator discretion on election day | No facts show disparate application; claim is speculative | No plaintiff has standing for this claim; dismissed for all parties |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard for plausibility)
- Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (organizational standing where core business activities are impeded)
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (balancing burdens on the right to vote against state interests)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (framework for reviewing voting restrictions)
- Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (analysis of photo ID law and burdens on voters)
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (standing must rest on actual or imminent injury, not speculation)
- Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216 (due process requires meaningful opportunity to be heard)
- Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149 (pre-enforcement standing requires substantial risk of future injury)