New Hampshire Orders Easier Voter Registration With Citizenship Attestation
Federal judge orders New Hampshire to allow voter citizenship attestation via affidavit when documentary proof unavailable.
Objective Facts
On May 29, U.S. District Court Judge Samantha Elliot ruled 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 judge found that 2024 changes to state voter registration law unconstitutionally removed qualified voter affidavits, the only proof method available to a significant number of New Hampshire voters. Evidence showed only 47 instances of wrongful voting among 8.3 million ballots cast from 1998-2024, with merely eight potentially involving noncitizens, leading the judge to conclude wrongful voting by noncitizens is essentially non-existent. Secretary of State David Scanlan confirmed reinstatement of voter affidavits while maintaining requirements for documentary proof of identity, age and address. New Hampshire's Attorney General's office plans to appeal, calling the citizenship requirements a common-sense approach designed to protect election integrity.
Left-Leaning Perspective
The American Civil Liberties Union and groups challenging the law, represented by deputy legal director Henry Klementowicz, argued the requirement for new voters to provide birth certificates or U.S. passports was unconstitutional, stating New Hampshire's elections have been safe and the law could prevent thousands of eligible voters from casting ballots. Plaintiffs' experts testified that requiring documentation would be burdensome and unnecessary, with Dartmouth professor Michael Herron estimating between 5,433 and 59,583 eligible New Hampshire voters currently lack citizenship proof documents. Trial evidence showed nearly 40% of people don't have U.S. passports, and married women changing last names would be disproportionately impacted if new names don't match birth certificates. Left-leaning coverage emphasized the judge's finding that voter fraud is essentially non-existent and that ballot access should not be restricted based on minimal fraud risk.
Right-Leaning Perspective
House Election Law Chairman Ross Berry, R-Weare, said he was not surprised an unelected judge would push far-left Democratic policies, claiming the vast majority of Granite Staters support common sense election integrity laws. Republican lawmakers who championed the bill argued both measures were necessary to close loopholes in the state's process, saying the previous law allowed people to fraudulently complete affidavits and vote, potentially affecting close elections. The state Attorney General's Office defended the law by arguing voter fraud concerns justified it, claiming the law was important to maintain public confidence in elections and reduce costly post-election citizenship investigations by preventing unverified registrants from registering initially. Right-leaning framing emphasizes that documentary requirements are necessary safeguards and that judicial intervention represents an overreach.
Deep Dive
This case represents a pivotal narrowing of the Trump administration's national push for strict citizenship documentation requirements. Judge Elliot's ruling does not decide whether requiring citizenship proof itself is constitutional—a much broader question—but instead focuses on whether eliminating one method (sworn affidavits) unconstitutionally burdens voters. The empirical record strongly supported the plaintiffs: Among 8.3 million ballots cast over 26 years, only eight potentially involved noncitizens, versus tens of thousands of eligible voters lacking documentary proof. New Hampshire's own top officials, including the governor who signed the law, had stated fraud is not a problem. The judge applied the "Anderson-Burdick" balancing test, weighing the law's burden on voting against the state's interests. She found the burden substantial—particularly on young voters, women with name changes, and those born out of state—while the state's interests in fraud prevention were undercut by the rarity of the problem and the availability of post-election remedies. Critically, New Hampshire lacks provisional ballots or same-day registration windows, creating what the judge called a missing "safety valve." The state's argument that affidavits create financial burden was rebutted by the fact that no statewide affidavit investigation had ever occurred. Each side's core claim contains truth: Affidavits do rely on honesty under penalty of perjury (the state's point), but they are legally binding and exposing violators to criminal prosecution (the judge's point). What remains unresolved is whether the state will appeal to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals and whether it will seek to stay the ruling pending that appeal. The case will likely influence how aggressively other states can implement strict citizenship documentation laws. The judge explicitly avoided deciding whether citizenship requirements themselves are constitutional—a narrower holding than voting rights advocates might have hoped—which may give Republicans a clearer path to appellate arguments focused on the specific affidavit-removal question rather than the broader concept.