Opinion of the Justices, 167 N.H. 539

On March 11, 2015 the New Hampshire House adopted a request for an advisory opinion from the NH Supreme Court about HB 112, which would treat a declared domicile for voting as residence for motor vehicle law purposes.
The House asked two questions: (1) whether HB 112 violates Part I, Article 11 of the NH Constitution (equal right to vote) and (2) whether HB 112 violates any other provisions of the U.S. or NH Constitutions.
The Court noted Part II, Article 74 authorizes advisory opinions to the legislature or Governor and Council but only in circumscribed circumstances (proposed legislation, not existing statutes, and not to private individuals), and such opinions are nonbinding.
The Court declined to answer the House’s broad second question about other constitutional provisions, following prior practice against general constitutional inquiries.
The Court also declined to answer the Article 11 question at this time because a presently pending litigated case (Guare v. State) raises similar issues, has a developed factual record, and is set for argument; issuing an advisory opinion now would intrude on that ongoing adjudication and lack a developed factual record.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does HB 112 violate Part I, Article 11 (equal right to vote)?	ACLU/League/Fair Elections: HB 112 burdens voting rights by changing domicile/residence rules and likely denies equal access.	House/Charles G. Douglas: HB 112 is permissible; it reasonably aligns voting domicile with motor vehicle residence rules and does not unconstitutionally burden voting rights.	Court declined to decide now; requested to be excused pending resolution of the similar, fully litigated Guare case.
Should the Court answer the House’s advisory request now (procedural/justiciability)?	Requesting body: asks for advisory guidance now on proposed statutory change.	Court/Defenses: advisory opinions are limited; cannot resolve fact-dependent constitutional claims outside adversarial record or while similar litigation is pending.	Held: Court will not answer now; will revisit after Guare opinion and after asking House whether it wishes to proceed.

Duncan v. State, 166 N.H. 630 (2014) (limits and scope of Part II, Article 74 advisory opinions)
Akins v. Sec’y of State, 154 N.H. 67 (2006) (Article 11 establishes a fundamental equal right to vote; burden analysis framework)
Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (balancing framework for reviewing burdens on voting rights)
State v. Ploof, 162 N.H. 609 (2011) (advisory opinions are nonbinding and do not constitute precedent)
Opinion of the Justices (Requiring Att’y Gen. to Join Lawsuit), 162 N.H. 160 (2011) (declining to answer broad constitutional inquiries)
Opinion of the Justices (Appointment of Chief Justice), 150 N.H. 355 (2003) (advisory opinions are as individual constitutional advisors; limits on issuing advice)