New Hampshire federal judge orders easier voter registration with citizenship attestation option

A federal judge ordered New Hampshire to make voter registration easier by allowing applicants to attest to citizenship if they lack documents to prove it.

Objective Facts

A federal judge said that New Hampshire must make voter registration easier by allowing applicants to attest to their U.S. citizenship if they don't have the documents to prove it. The case was seen as the first major legal test of an election reform that has been pushed nationally by President Donald Trump and has gained favor among many Republicans, though U.S. District Court Judge Samantha Elliot said she was not deciding whether requiring proof of citizenship itself is constitutional. Elliot found that changes in 2024 to the state voter registration law unconstitutionally removed one method of proof — namely, a voter's sworn affidavit attesting to citizenship. The attorney general's office said it plans to appeal the judge's ruling, calling the citizenship requirements a "common-sense approach to voter registration and election administration designed to protect the integrity of our elections." In her ruling, Elliott said eliminating the affidavit option created a significant burden for voters and did little, if anything, to further the state's interests, noting that an expert on voter fraud found only 47 instances of wrongful voting out of roughly 8.3 million votes between 1998 and 2024, with only eight noncitizens possibly having cast ballots during that time.

Left-Leaning Perspective

The ACLU of New Hampshire's Henry Klementowicz stated that the law "could have unconstitutionally and needlessly prevented thousands of eligible voters from casting a ballot," framing the ruling as a protection of fundamental voting rights. The League of Women Voters' Marcia Johnson argued that "eligible voters should not be denied access to voting because of burdensome and unnecessary requirements" and that "protecting elections and protecting voters' rights are not competing goals." The ACLU's deputy legal director Klementowicz declared: "Making it harder to vote is a clear attack on one of our most fundamental of rights, and this law is consigned to the dustbin of history where it belongs." Left-leaning outlets emphasized evidence of minimal voter fraud and the practical burden on eligible citizens. Judge Elliott cited Michael Herron, a Dartmouth professor, whose analysis estimated between 5,433 and 59,583 eligible voters in New Hampshire currently lack citizenship documents. Expert witnesses testified that nearly 40% of Americans lack U.S. passports and married women could be disproportionately impacted if names don't match birth certificates. Left-leaning coverage downplayed the state's election integrity argument. Judge Elliott noted an expert on voter fraud found only 47 instances of wrongful voting out of roughly 8.3 million votes between 1998 and 2024, with only eight noncitizens possibly casting ballots during that period, writing "If wrongful voting is rare in New Hampshire, wrongful voting by noncitizens is essentially non-existent."

Right-Leaning Perspective

House Election Law Chairman Ross Berry said "I am not surprised that an unelected judge 'appointed' by the autopen in 2021 would push far-left Democratic policies on the people of New Hampshire. The vast majority of Granite Staters support common sense election integrity laws" and "This isn't the first time a progressive judge has ignored the law and precedent to push a political agenda. It's a pattern." New Hampshire's attorney general's office defended the law as a "common-sense approach to voter registration and election administration designed to protect the integrity of our elections." Conservative voices argued the ruling undermined election security regardless of past fraud rates. Republicans have used the small investigation rate to argue there may be more fraud than is known, suggesting the lack of prosecutions does not prove fraud doesn't occur. The state Attorney General's Office used voter fraud concerns to defend the law in court, arguing that such laws were important to maintain public confidence in New Hampshire elections and to reduce costly post-election citizenship investigations, contending that keeping out everyone without clear proof from registering would make investigations unnecessary and secure voter rolls. Former Gov. Chris Sununu and Rep. Bob Lynn, who authored the legislation, have stressed that the state's election system is secure and that there is no widespread fraud, suggesting Republican leaders attempted to balance election integrity with accessible voting. Right-leaning coverage criticized the judge's methodology and questioned the court's authority. Elliott noted in her ruling that both the bill's sponsor Rep. Robert Lynn and Governor Chris Sununu had said election fraud is not a problem in New Hampshire, though house leadership blasted the ruling claiming it originates from a far-left judge. Right-leaning outlets omitted or downplayed the evidence of minimal noncitizen voting and the practical burdens on eligible voters.

Deep Dive

This ruling represents a pivotal moment in the national debate over proof-of-citizenship voting requirements, a cornerstone of President Trump's election agenda. Trump is trying to push a proof-of-citizenship bill, the SAVE America Act, through Congress, making New Hampshire's case a high-stakes test. The judge did not rule on whether requiring proof of citizenship itself is constitutional—a narrower holding that preserved the possibility for citizenship verification while rejecting the specific method of eliminating affidavits. Elliott noted in her ruling that both the bill's sponsor Rep. Robert Lynn and Governor Chris Sununu had said election fraud is not a problem in New Hampshire, undermining the state's own justification for the law. The left gets the evidentiary argument right: The ruling follows a nine-day trial in which backers of the law were unable to provide conclusive proof that non-citizens were regularly participating in New Hampshire elections, with just one person in the past 26 years prosecuted for knowingly voting as a non-U.S. citizen. The right's counterargument—that low prosecution rates don't prove low fraud rates—is technically plausible but unsubstantiated by testimony or evidence presented in this trial. What the right omits is Judge Elliott's finding that "Because New Hampshire does not offer provisional ballots or provide a 'day after' election day on which an eligible voter can register and still vote in that election, there is no 'safety valve' to allow voters who arrive at the polls without proof of citizenship to register to vote," meaning the state's remedy was unduly restrictive compared to alternatives used elsewhere. Looking forward, the state's planned appeal will likely face an uphill battle, as federal courts have consistently struck down citizenship documentation requirements that prevent eligible voters from participating. A similar law in Kansas was found in 2018 to violate both the U.S. Constitution and the National Voter Registration Act after it prevented more than 31,000 citizens from registering, and Arizona established a two-tiered system after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that the state could not require citizenship documentation for federal elections. The decision sets a precedent that could influence how other states implement citizenship verification going forward, particularly whether they include affidavit options as fallbacks for voters lacking documents.

OBJ SPEAKING

Create StoryTimelinesVoter ToolsRegional AnalysisPolicy GuideAll StoriesCommunity PicksUSWorldPoliticsBusinessHealthEntertainmentTechnologyAbout

New Hampshire federal judge orders easier voter registration with citizenship attestation option

A federal judge ordered New Hampshire to make voter registration easier by allowing applicants to attest to citizenship if they lack documents to prove it.

May 29, 2026· Updated May 30, 2026
What's Going On

A federal judge said that New Hampshire must make voter registration easier by allowing applicants to attest to their U.S. citizenship if they don't have the documents to prove it. The case was seen as the first major legal test of an election reform that has been pushed nationally by President Donald Trump and has gained favor among many Republicans, though U.S. District Court Judge Samantha Elliot said she was not deciding whether requiring proof of citizenship itself is constitutional. Elliot found that changes in 2024 to the state voter registration law unconstitutionally removed one method of proof — namely, a voter's sworn affidavit attesting to citizenship. The attorney general's office said it plans to appeal the judge's ruling, calling the citizenship requirements a "common-sense approach to voter registration and election administration designed to protect the integrity of our elections." In her ruling, Elliott said eliminating the affidavit option created a significant burden for voters and did little, if anything, to further the state's interests, noting that an expert on voter fraud found only 47 instances of wrongful voting out of roughly 8.3 million votes between 1998 and 2024, with only eight noncitizens possibly having cast ballots during that time.

Left says: Henry Klementowicz, an attorney with the ACLU, said "Making it harder to vote is a clear attack on one of our most fundamental of rights, and this law is consigned to the dustbin of history where it belongs." Left-leaning outlets and voting rights advocates contend the law created unnecessary barriers that would disenfranchise eligible voters with minimal fraud evidence.
Right says: Rep. Ross Berry said "I am not surprised that an unelected judge 'appointed' by the autopen in 2021 would push far-left Democratic policies on the people of New Hampshire. The vast majority of Granite Staters support common sense election integrity laws." Conservative officials argue the ruling ignores legitimate election security concerns and represents judicial overreach.
✓ Common Ground
Some voices across the political spectrum acknowledge that New Hampshire does have same-day voter registration. New Hampshire is one of the few states in the nation that allows people to register to vote at the polls, a fact cited by both supporters and critics of the law.
Even Republican leaders, including Gov. Chris Sununu and Rep. Bob Lynn who authored the legislation, acknowledged that the state's election system is secure and that there is no widespread fraud, agreeing with voting rights advocates on the lack of evidence of systemic fraud.
Both the left and state Republicans agree that other voter identification requirements remain in place. Secretary of State David Scanlan noted the ruling doesn't affect other 2024 changes including documentary proof of identity, age and address requirements, and voters also will continue to be required to show proof of identity on Election Day.
Objective Deep Dive

This ruling represents a pivotal moment in the national debate over proof-of-citizenship voting requirements, a cornerstone of President Trump's election agenda. Trump is trying to push a proof-of-citizenship bill, the SAVE America Act, through Congress, making New Hampshire's case a high-stakes test. The judge did not rule on whether requiring proof of citizenship itself is constitutional—a narrower holding that preserved the possibility for citizenship verification while rejecting the specific method of eliminating affidavits. Elliott noted in her ruling that both the bill's sponsor Rep. Robert Lynn and Governor Chris Sununu had said election fraud is not a problem in New Hampshire, undermining the state's own justification for the law.

The left gets the evidentiary argument right: The ruling follows a nine-day trial in which backers of the law were unable to provide conclusive proof that non-citizens were regularly participating in New Hampshire elections, with just one person in the past 26 years prosecuted for knowingly voting as a non-U.S. citizen. The right's counterargument—that low prosecution rates don't prove low fraud rates—is technically plausible but unsubstantiated by testimony or evidence presented in this trial. What the right omits is Judge Elliott's finding that "Because New Hampshire does not offer provisional ballots or provide a 'day after' election day on which an eligible voter can register and still vote in that election, there is no 'safety valve' to allow voters who arrive at the polls without proof of citizenship to register to vote," meaning the state's remedy was unduly restrictive compared to alternatives used elsewhere.

Looking forward, the state's planned appeal will likely face an uphill battle, as federal courts have consistently struck down citizenship documentation requirements that prevent eligible voters from participating. A similar law in Kansas was found in 2018 to violate both the U.S. Constitution and the National Voter Registration Act after it prevented more than 31,000 citizens from registering, and Arizona established a two-tiered system after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that the state could not require citizenship documentation for federal elections. The decision sets a precedent that could influence how other states implement citizenship verification going forward, particularly whether they include affidavit options as fallbacks for voters lacking documents.

◈ Tone Comparison

Left-leaning outlets and advocates used language framing voting access as a fundamental right under attack, with the ACLU describing the law as being "consigned to the dustbin of history." Right-leaning voices characterized the ruling as judicial overreach by a "progressive judge" imposing "far-left Democratic policies," while defending the law as "common-sense" election administration designed to "protect the integrity of our elections." The tone difference reflects fundamental disagreement over whether the court's role is to protect voter access or whether legislatures should have primary authority over election rules.