Federal judge blocks New Hampshire proof‑of‑citizenship voter law

A federal judge on May 28 declared New Hampshire’s 2024 law that required first‑time voters to present a U.S. passport, birth certificate, or naturalization papers unconstitutional, restoring the ability to register using a qualified voter affidavit [1]. The decision, issued by Judge Samantha Elliott, is seen as a major victory for voting‑rights groups and will take effect immediately.

Key takeaways

• The court ruled the proof‑of‑citizenship requirement “cannot justify the burden on voters” and reinstated the affidavit option [3].
• State officials, including Secretary of State David Scanlan, said they will revert to the 2024 election procedures while reviewing the order [1].
• The Attorney General’s Office announced it will appeal the ruling, calling the law a “common‑sense approach” to election integrity [1].
• Plaintiffs highlighted that only eight non‑citizen voting incidents were identified between 1998 and 2024, with a single criminal prosecution [2].
• The decision follows a nine‑day bench trial in February where evidence showed the law disproportionately affected young voters, married women, and college students [2].

Court overturns the proof‑of‑citizenship rule

Judge Samantha Elliott issued a 98‑page opinion concluding that New Hampshire’s removal of the “Qualified Voter Affidavit” at the end of 2024 placed an undue burden on eligible voters, especially young people and married women whose names may not match birth documents [2]. The ruling noted that the state’s justification—preventing voter fraud—was unsupported by the record; only eight alleged non‑citizen voting cases were found over a 26‑year span, and just one resulted in a pending criminal charge [2][3]. Elliott emphasized that the evidence “strongly undercut any legitimate concern” about election integrity [3].

In response, Secretary of State David Scanlan said the state would conduct voter registration “the way we have done in the past,” allowing voters to use an affidavit to attest to citizenship while still requiring proof of identity, age, and domicile [1][2]. The Attorney General’s Office expressed disappointment and indicated an appeal would be pursued, describing the law as a “common‑sense approach” to protect election integrity [1].

Reactions from advocates and officials

Voting‑rights groups that filed the lawsuits—including the ACLU of New Hampshire, the League of Women Voters, and the New Hampshire Youth Movement—celebrated the decision. ACLU attorney Henry Klementowicz called the ruling a win for fundamental voting rights [1][3]. Olivia Zink of Open Democracy NH said the court recognized that elections can remain secure without “unnecessary barriers” [2].

Republican lawmakers who championed the law criticized the decision, with Rep. Ross Berry accusing “unelected far‑left judges” of imposing their ideology [2]. The case mirrors earlier litigation, such as the 2018 Kansas ruling that struck down a similar law after it blocked more than 31,000 eligible voters [2].

Why it matters

The ruling restores a registration pathway that many New Hampshire voters—particularly college students and those lacking passport‑type documents—relied on in the 2024 election, where over 1,000 Durham voters used affidavits [2]. By removing the strict documentation requirement, the state may see fewer disenfranchisement incidents, though the legal battle is likely to continue as the Department of Justice reviews a possible appeal [1][3]. The decision also adds to a national conversation about proof‑of‑citizenship laws, with federal proposals like the SAVE America Act facing scrutiny for potential voting‑rights impacts.