On May 28, federal district court judge Samantha Elliott ruled that New Hampshire’s 2024 law requiring proof of citizenship for first-time voters is unconstitutional. H.B. 1569 — signed into law by former Gov. Chris Sununu in September 2024 — banned the use of the qualified voter affidavit, used when a prospective voter does not have access to a government-issued ID such as a birth certificate or passport, to confirm citizenship for same-day voter registration.
After a nine-day bench trial, the court ruled that the elimination of the affidavits creates an “unjustifiable burden on the right to vote,” violating the First and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
The challenge to H.B. 1569 was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire and Ropes & Grey LLP on behalf of the Coalition for Open Democracy, the League of Women Voters of New Hampshire, The Forward Foundation and several individual voters.
New Hampshire currently has some of the strictest voter laws in the country, according to the decision. In April, Gov. Kelly Ayotte signed H.B. 323, which prohibits the use of school-issued ID cards in obtaining ballots on election day.
League of Women Voters of New Hampshire president Liz Tentarelli wrote in a press release that New Hampshire citizens “deserve a system for eligible voters to participate without unnecessary hurdles.”
In an interview with The Dartmouth, Open Democracy N.H. executive director Olivia Zink said the organization saw “hundreds of Granite Staters turned away” in its nonpartisan poll observation in spring 2025 after H.B. 1569 went into effect because they did not have copies of their birth certificate, naturalization papers or a passport.
“All of those documents require you to pay to get them,” Zink said.
Government professor and State Rep. Russell Muirhead, D-Grafton, said in an interview with The Dartmouth that he acted as the “friend of the minor plaintiffs” for his children who were listed as two of “three individuals” in the plaintiff party.
Muirhead, who serves on the N.H. House election law committee, said he was “concerned” when he first saw H.B. 1569 because he believed it was “a completely irrational bill” that worked “against the spirit of America.”
“My concern was that this bill would disenfranchise people,” Muirhead said. “What benefit did the citizens of New Hampshire get in exchange for disenfranchising certain people in the state who couldn’t access their documents?”
Muirhead said he is “delighted” by yesterday’s decision, which went into effect immediately.
The “ruling is a victory for all Granite State voters,” ACLU of N.H. deputy legal director Henry Klementowicz wrote in a press release. “New Hampshire’s elections have always been safe, secure and accurate — and this law could have unconstitutionally and needlessly prevented thousands of eligible voters from casting a ballot. 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.”
N.H. Secretary of State David Scanlan — listed as a defendant in the legal challenge — testified that “noncitizen voting is essentially non-existent” in the state. Scanlan wrote in a press release that the secretary of state’s office will “reimplement” the use of the qualified voter affidavit “until further notice.” He continued, writing that “unaffected portions of H.B. 1569” — such as requiring that all prospective voters provide proof of age, citizenship, domicile and identity — “will still increase trust and confidence that all voters who cast a ballot in New Hampshire elections are qualified to do so.”
In a statement to The New York Times, a spokesperson for New Hampshire’s Justice Department said that the state intended to appeal the decision. The attorney general and Justice Department could not be immediately reached for comment.
Tierney Flavin ’28 is a reporter and editor. She is from Kansas City, Mo. and plans to major in Government and Sociology.
