Saucedo v. Gardner, 335 F. Supp. 3d 202

Background

New Hampshire law (RSA 659:50, III) required local moderators to compare the signature on a voter's absentee-ballot application with the signature on the affidavit envelope and reject the ballot if the moderator concluded the signatures did not "appear to be executed by the same person."
Moderators are lay, locally elected officials who receive minimal training, no handwriting-analysis training, no required standards or equipment, and their signature decisions are final with no pre-deprivation notice or cure opportunity to the voter.
In the 2016 general election 275 absentee ballots (0.35% of absentee ballots) were rejected for signature mismatch; rejection rates varied widely across municipalities.
Plaintiffs (three absentee voters whose ballots were rejected) sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (procedural due process, vote-equal-protection/ uniformity, and vote-rights claims) and the ADA; cross-motions for summary judgment were filed.
Forensic expert Dr. Mohammed (undisputed by defendants) testified that signatures naturally vary for many reasons; proper comparison requires training, multiple exemplars, equipment, time, and standards — lacking here — and lay reviewers are more likely to falsely reject genuine signatures.
The court found the risk of erroneous, irremediable disenfranchisement significant given lack of notice, cure, standards, review, or oversight and granted summary judgment on the procedural due process claim, permanently enjoining enforcement of RSA 659:50, III.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Procedural due process: does RSA 659:50, III violate due process by providing no notice/cure and leaving final signature decisions to untrained moderators?	Signature-match procedure deprives absentee voters of a protected interest (their vote) without forewarning, meaningful process, or review; error risk is real and fixable by simple notice/cure (e.g., phone/email).	The risk of erroneous deprivation is extremely slight (low rejection rates); additional procedures would impose significant administrative burdens and existing guidance/training suffices.	Court: statute violates procedural due process under Mathews balancing; granted declaratory relief and permanent injunction against enforcing RSA 659:50, III.
Fundamental vote right / uniformity (Counts II & III): do statute/implementation burden right to vote or produce nonuniform treatment?	Statute and its unbridled local application produce arbitrary, nonuniform disenfranchisement and burden fundamental right to vote.	No fundamental problem with statute itself; disparities reflect local application and could be cured by training.	Court declined to decide these claims on the merits because procedural-due-process relief provided complete relief; Counts II & III dismissed without prejudice.
ADA claim (Count IV) brought by disabled plaintiff (Saucedo): does statute violate ADA?	Plaintiff argued the signature-match process burdened voters with disabilities.	Defendants relied on 2017 amendment exempting voters assisted due to blindness/disability; thus the claim is moot.	Court: ADA claim is moot as amended statute provides the disabled plaintiff exemption; Count IV dismissed without prejudice as moot.
Remedy/relief: what relief is appropriate?	Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief invalidating RSA 659:50, III and requiring notice/cure.	Defendants opposed wholesale invalidation, urging narrower remedies (training, enforcement on local officials).	Court: granted declaratory judgment that RSA 659:50, III is unconstitutional and permanently enjoined enforcement; left other remedial specifics to implementation by Secretary of State.

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) (facial-challenge standard discussed)
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (three-factor balancing test for procedural due process)
Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000) (uniform treatment of ballots principle referenced)
Lemons v. Bradbury, 538 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2008) (upholding signature-verification procedure where there were multiple review layers)
Zessar v. Keith, 536 F.3d 788 (7th Cir. 2008) (district-court decision on similar issue discussed and later vacated by appellate action)
Libertarian Party of N.H. v. Gardner, 843 F.3d 20 (1st Cir. 2016) (standards for facial challenges and ballot-access precedent)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment burden allocation)
Woodward v. Emulex Corp., 714 F.3d 632 (1st Cir. 2013) (summary judgment standard)
Kelley v. Corr. Med. Servs., Inc., 707 F.3d 108 (1st Cir. 2013) (summary-judgment framing)