New Hampshire Youth Movement v. Scanlan
1:24-cv-00291
| D.N.H. | Aug 13, 2025Background
- The New Hampshire Youth Movement (NHYM), a nonprofit focused on youth civic engagement, sued the New Hampshire Secretary of State to challenge a provision of House Bill 1569 (HB 1569), which eliminated the Qualified Voter Affidavit as a way to register to vote.
- Previously, prospective New Hampshire voters without proper documentation could register by attesting to their citizenship, identity, and age via affidavit; HB 1569 now requires documentary proof.
- NHYM claims this change unconstitutionally burdens the right to vote under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
- The Secretary of State moved to dismiss the case, arguing NHYM lacks standing, the issue is a nonjusticiable political question, and the complaint fails to state a claim.
- The court’s decision addresses standing (both organizational and associational), the political question doctrine, and sufficiency of the constitutional claim under Anderson-Burdick.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing (Organizational) | NHYM itself is harmed because HB 1569 disrupts its core voter engagement activities, requiring diversion of resources. | NHYM is merely advocating an issue and not directly affected; lacks concrete injury under the law. | NHYM alleged sufficient direct interference with its core activities to establish organizational standing. |
| Standing (Associational) | At least one member, Musick, will be directly and imminently affected by the new law when registering to vote. | Musick’s alleged injury is generalized, not concrete, and any burden is speculative or not particularized. | NHYM has associational standing; Musick faces concrete, particularized risk under the challenged law. |
| Political Question Doctrine | This constitutional claim is justiciable as courts routinely review voting rights burdens. | HB 1569 reflects a policy determination not subject to judicial review; thus, it’s a political question. | Challenge is justiciable; federal courts can and must review voting rights claims. |
| Merits of Constitutional Claim | HB 1569 imposes unjustified burdens on the right to vote for young and student voters. | Burdens are minor, impact only a small group, and are outweighed by the state’s election integrity interests. | Complaint alleges sufficient facts under Anderson-Burdick to survive dismissal at pleading stage. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (discussing the plausibility standard for sufficiency of pleading)
- Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (setting requirements for Article III standing)
- Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (defining organizational standing based on interference with core organizational activities)
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (creating the balancing test for evaluating burdens on voting rights)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (setting the framework for reviewing state election law burdens on constitutional rights)
- Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181 (analyzing voter ID law burdens under Anderson-Burdick)