Latest news with #WillSteinfeld
Yahoo
28-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
As lawsuit against voter registration law proceeds, attorneys spar over who can sue
The lawsuit, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire, alleges that House Bill 1569 is unconstitutional because it places an undue burden on voting by requiring documents that not all residents can easily access, risking disenfranchisement. (Photo by Will Steinfeld/New Hampshire Bulletin) Miles Borne, Alexander Muirhead, and Lila Muirhead didn't vote in the 2024 presidential election. At the time, none of the three New Hampshire residents had turned 18. But each will be legally old enough to vote by 2026. And they say a new state law requiring them to provide hard documentary evidence that they are citizens, such as with a passport or birth certificate, is going to 'burden' their 'ability to register to vote.' Now, lawyers for the three hope a judge will agree. They are part of a lawsuit against the recent state law, joining a diverse group of plaintiffs that includes the Coalition for Open Democracy, the League of Women Voters of New Hampshire, the Forward Foundation, and several individuals. The lawsuit, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire, alleges that House Bill 1569 is unconstitutional because it places an undue burden on voting by requiring documents that not all residents can easily access, risking disenfranchisement. But as voting rights groups and the state of New Hampshire gird for potentially years of litigation, the plaintiffs face a more immediate question: Can they sue the state over a law that has not yet stopped them from voting? Lawyers for the Attorney General's Office, which is defending the law, say none of the plaintiffs — neither the prospective voters nor the organizations that say they are affected by it — are qualified to sue the state, a determination known as standing. 'Where is the direct impediment here?' Assistant Attorney General Michael DeGrandis asked in court. The new law took effect Nov. 11 last year, a week after the Nov. 5 presidential election, and has not yet affected any statewide elections. It was in place during the town meeting season this spring, and advocates say at least 96 people were turned away from voting as a result of not possessing the proper documentation. But so far, none of those 96 people has joined the lawsuit. Attorneys for the plaintiffs said under previous case law, the individuals and groups do not need to be directly disenfranchised to be harmed by the new statute. 'Those folks were injured as soon as the law was passed, as soon as the law came into effect,' Jacob van Leer, a staff attorney at the ACLU Voting Rights Project who is helping represent the plaintiffs, said at a press conference. 'The urgency, I think, could not be more present here with the 2026 elections coming up.' The arguments came to a head during a lengthy stretch of oral arguments in the U.S. District Court of New Hampshire last week. Judge Samantha Elliott is considering a motion by the state to dismiss the lawsuit entirely. Part of that motion is an argument that the law has not sufficiently harmed the people suing. The fight over the new state law, which imposes the most stringent voter registration requirements in the country, comes as Republicans are pushing similar legislation on the national stage. On April 10, the U.S. House passed the SAVE Act, which would in part require hard documentary proof of U.S. citizenship for federal elections nationwide, but the bill is likely to struggle to overcome the 60-vote requirement in the Senate to escape a filibuster. Meanwhile, President Donald Trump issued an executive order on March 25 that directed the U.S. Election Assistance Commission to require proof of U.S. citizenship. On Thursday, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the U.S. District Court of Washington, D.C., granted a preliminary injunction to temporarily halt that order. In the New Hampshire lawsuit, the plaintiffs say the state law will affect them in multiple ways. McKenzie Taylor, the New Hampshire state director of America Votes, an advocacy organization, got married in 2024 and changed her last name; the name on her birth certificate is St. Germain, her maiden name. As of September, when the lawsuit was filed, Taylor had not updated her name on her passport or state driver's license. In the lawsuit, she argues the new law would require her to do so in order to vote, a financial burden. December Rust is an unhoused man living in Littleton without a passport or access to his birth certificate, who has argued he would not be able to easily obtain it. He has also argued that because the law eliminated challenged voter affidavits — which allowed people to cast a ballot even when an election observer challenged their citizenship or other qualification at the polls — he could be targeted by a challenge with no ability to defend himself. Each advocacy organization involved says the new law impairs their ability to carry out their missions, which include helping residents register to vote. DeGrandis argued each of the people or organizations suing is flawed. He argued the organizations have not sufficiently shown that HB 1569 is a threat to their missions. 'Open Democracy isn't turning anyone away,' he said. 'They're providing this information. And if someone doesn't have documentation, they're saying you need that documentation. That's not turning someone away, that's advising.' And he said the individual plaintiffs have not suffered injury from the law, and especially not injury with 'actual or imminent concrete and particularized harm.' 'There's a difference between preference and injury,' DeGrandis said. 'That's why the youth plaintiffs don't have standing. They're engaging in speculation regarding how the remedy would operate to remedy the harm that they allege.' Elliott appeared skeptical of that critique. 'I'm confused as to your confusion,' she said. 'They complained that they would have to bring documentation, and with the remedy, they would not need to bring documentation.' And van Leer said the organizations faced an immediate impediment in understanding the law. 'We still have no idea what it means to need other reasonable documentation proving citizenship. It makes it impossible for these organizations to provide clear voter registration services to voters when they themselves don't know what that means.' Lawyers for the ACLU filed the lawsuit early, in September, in order to secure an injunction against the new law before the next statewide elections in September 2026. The timing meant that none of the plaintiffs had been directly affected by the law when it was filed. But in court, they emphasized that a law can be blocked as unconstitutional even before it has disenfranchised someone, and noted that the lawsuit could proceed even if Elliott rejects some or even most of the plaintiffs, as long as she finds that at least one has standing. Elliott at times appeared to agree with the argument that at least some of the plaintiffs had shown a burden. 'The issue is: What barrier does this law impose on voting?' Elliott asked. 'In this case, the barrier that it imposes is this requirement to produce the identification.' If the SAVE Act passes the Senate and is signed by Trump, or if Trump's executive order survives a court challenge, New Hampshire could be required to participate in a national scheme very similar to HB 1569 — and one that would supersede that law and any block on it by a court. For now, attorneys for the plaintiffs say they are pushing the attempt to stop the state law from moving ahead. 'It seems like HB 1569 is a solution in search of a problem in ways that ultimately will require individuals to scrounge together very limited forms of documentation that many folks don't have at all, and, even more, don't have immediate access to in order to exercise their fundamental rights,' van Leer said at the press conference.
Yahoo
04-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
In New Hampshire, climate accountability is a public safety priority
Gov. Kelly Ayotte speaks with reporters on Election Day, Nov. 5, 2024. (Photo by Will Steinfeld/New Hampshire Bulletin) Public safety and corporate accountability must be at the top of the list for our next attorney general. John Formella is our attorney general now and his term ends soon. Gov. Kelly Ayotte will nominate a successor for confirmation by the Executive Council; her pick should be someone for whom accountability on the costs of climate change is a priority. We can thank Formella for holding opioid manufacturers accountable and winning a $40 million settlement to the public benefit of New Hampshire. Quite rightly, his lawsuit called out the manufacturer for creating a public nuisance that interfered with public health and safety. The lawsuit also claimed the manufacturer deceived the public by misrepresenting the safety of its products. Deception and risks to the public were central to New Hampshire's 2003 lawsuit against Exxon and other fossil fuel manufacturers over an additive in gasoline, and cited negligence and failure to provide adequate warnings regarding dangers associated with their product. After a decade of litigation, several New Hampshire attorneys general (Ayotte among them) and a three-month-long trial in 2013, the jury needed less than two hours to arrive at a guilty verdict. Exxon paid New Hampshire $236 million; the award is being used today for projects related to cleaning up and protecting drinking water. These two lawsuits illustrate New Hampshire at its best: serving under parens patriae, the principle that the state carries with it the responsibility for the protection of its citizens. New Hampshire can rely on this principle to sue fossil fuel companies for their role in climate change. Science has determined the causes of climate change. The evidence illustrates that Exxon's own scientists understood the link between burning fossil fuels and global warming as far back as 1977. Yet Exxon's leadership chose not to confront the challenge, but instead chose to deny, deceive, and delay, and reap hundreds of billions of dollars in profits. The paper trail is there for all to see. Peer-reviewed science has also determined with some precision the role fossil fuel companies have played in contributing to climate change. Published science finds that heat-trapping emissions traced to the world's largest fossil fuel producers have contributed to nearly half of the rise in temperature and nearly one-third of the observed sea level rise. Science now plays a key role in litigation. Today over 30 U.S. cities, counties, and states are suing to hold accountable Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, and others to pay their fair share of the costs of climate change. Five New England states are suing fossil fuel companies using various consumer protection laws related to consumer fraud, deception, and damages. Climate impacts ignore political borders; it is time for New Hampshire to join Maine, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Vermont. Gov. Ayotte's positions on clean energy and climate have evolved in the right direction since she was our attorney general. As a U.S. senator, Ayotte listened to businesses and scientists. In 2015, in supporting the U.S. EPA's plan to reduce carbon pollution, Sen. Ayotte explained, 'I have decided to support the Clean Power Plan to address climate change through clean energy solutions that will protect our environment.' Addressing climate change will protect the environment and businesses, and business leaders in New Hampshire know this. Here are a few comments from a private meeting of 100 business leaders convened in 2014 to address risk and resilience and a changing climate: 'We seem to be getting into a period of climate that some of these storms will not have easy fixes.' — Technology provider 'I had three 100-year storms in five years. Where do you go with that?'— Utility official 'These major storms shut down trucking to various parts of the state and shut down commerce.' — Manufacturer 'Our cost to maintain roads in the woods has about doubled and are today unpredictable.' — Forest products supplier 'Property insurance is increasingly difficult to get on coastlines and you're going to have to deal with that.' — Financial adviser The costs to businesses and schools, to towns and cities, to residents and to public health are becoming overwhelming. An expensive new bridge spanning Hampton Harbor is designed for 4 feet of sea level rise; crop losses and washed-out roads occur in every county. Our taxes are already paying for mitigation and repair. It is time for New Hampshire to protect its citizens once again. Holding fossil fuel companies accountable for climate damages is consistent with the legal doctrines New Hampshire has relied on in the recent past against opioid manufacturers and polluters. Holding fossil fuel companies accountable needs to be on the short list for the next attorney general, and through her consideration and subsequent nomination Gov. Ayotte has a generational opportunity to make that happen.
Yahoo
26-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
House passes bill allowing New Hampshire voters to request their ballot be hand-counted
Voters fill in their ballots at the Warner Town Hall on Nov. 5, 2024. (Photo by Will Steinfeld/New Hampshire Bulletin) The New Hampshire House passed a bill Wednesday allowing voters to request that their ballot be hand-counted by cities and towns, even if their polling place uses machine counting. House Bill 154 would allow any voter to make that request to a poll worker; if they did so, town election officials would be required to deposit the ballot in an 'auxiliary compartment' of the ballot-counting machine to be hand-counted after the polls closed. The legislation comes amid a conservative movement against the use of voting tabulators in recent years. It also comes months after the state Supreme Court ruled that New Hampshire voters do not have a right to have their ballots counted by hand in towns that use machines. The plaintiff in that case, Daniel Richard, had argued that towns did not have the authority to require voting machines under the New Hampshire Constitution and that it created an unequal voting process when compared to towns that hand count. The court ruled that the state constitution does not require hand-counting, but remanded the case down to Rockingham County Superior Court. HB 154 passed on the House floor in a contested voice vote with no discussion. But during a vote in the House Election Law Committee, Republicans said the vote was meant to give voters the ability to cast their ballots the way they wanted to. Some opponents, who included Democrats, said the bill could slow down the voting process on election day. 'More people are going to ask for it, it's going to delay the counting of votes, and hand-counting has been shown to be less accurate than machine counting,' said Rep. Connie Lane, a Concord Democrat, during the committee's executive session. Others, including House Election Law Committee Chairman Ross Berry, a Weare Republican, said they supported giving voters the choice but advised voters to consider whether they wanted their ballots hand-counted in the first place. 'I will issue a word of caution: When you do this, when you exercise this … you're saying, I want somebody who's been up for 16 hours straight to pull out my ballot and read it amongst other ballots that are either put in that bin or had errors,' Berry said. 'My experience in the recounts shows that the machines are far more accurate than the people.' Berry added that he hoped the bill, if it became law, would discourage a recent trend in which anti-voting machine advocates force towns to count their ballots by hand by intentionally overvoting — filling in too many bubbles for a specific race — so that the machine rejects the ballot and it must be hand-counted anyway. The House also killed a number of election-related bills proposed by Democrats Thursday. One, House Bill 600, would have enabled cities to choose to hold elections using ranked-choice voting, a process in which voters list candidates in order of preference, and second and third choices are factored in if a candidate does not receive at least 50 percent of the vote. Advocates for that system say it eliminates the potential for politicians to be elected with a plurality of votes and encourages candidates to court their opponent's voters, discouraging partisanship. But Republicans said the system is confusing, can be time consuming for election officials, and is not needed. The House rejected a constitutional amendment, CACR 2, which would have barred the Legislature from drawing districts every 10 years in a way 'that favors or disfavors any political party or candidate.' Republicans said the addition would just allow the redistricting process to fall into the hands of courts, and that the current process is inherently political. And the House voted down House Bill 175, a proposed campaign finance law that would have barred candidates from coordinating their campaign's expenditures with the expenditures of political action committees. That practice is prohibited in federal elections by federal law, but is possible in state law. Rep. Travis Toner, a Belmont Republican, said the law could unfairly punish political action committees that simply share the same messaging goals as candidates, and noted it would not prevent coordination with unions. And he defended the increasing prominence of political action committees in state elections, including the gubernatorial race. 'The majority of the committee believes that political action committees (PACs) who collect money from everyday citizens of New Hampshire along with large and small businesses enable the voices of the state to be heard on a larger scale,' Toner wrote in an explanation in the House calendar ahead of the vote.
Yahoo
26-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
At least 96 people turned away from town meeting polls due to new state voting law, group says
Voters cast ballots at Hooksett's David R. Cawley Middle School on Nov. 5, 2024. (Photo by Will Steinfeld/New Hampshire Bulletin) Reegan DePasquale had just moved to Hampton. On March 11, she attempted a rite of passage: participation in town meeting. But after arriving at Winnacunnet High School after work, DePasquale hit a hurdle. As a new resident of New Hampshire, DePasquale was required to produce documentary evidence of her citizenship, part of the requirements of a state voting law that passed last year. She needed her birth certificate, and, because her married name does not match her birth certificate, a copy of her marriage certificate, too. It was 5 p.m., and DePasquale had two kids, 5 and 3, who needed dinner soon. She did some mental math and decided she wouldn't be able to make it back with the documents she needed by 7 p.m. Frustrated, she headed home and did not vote. 'I obviously brought my ID, brought my kids, and I didn't realize that I also needed to bring a passport or birth certificate,' she said during a press conference Tuesday. 'I don't usually carry those around with me.' A prominent New Hampshire voting rights group says DePasquale isn't alone. At least 96 people were turned away from voting during town meetings March 11 due to the new documentation law, according to research from the New Hampshire Campaign for Voting Rights, a subsidiary of America Votes, which hosted the press conference. The group deployed observers to 22 polling places across the state that day — the busiest day of town meeting season this year — McKenzie St. Germain, New Hampshire state director for America Votes, said Tuesday. The group also conducted follow-up conversations with local elections officials to arrive at the tally. 'Those 96 voters only represent towns where we either had observers or have gotten in touch with election officials,' St. Germain said. 'This is not even a full state perspective, so we would anticipate that that number may continue to grow.' This town meeting season is the first time the new law has been in effect; it was signed by Gov. Chris Sununu in 2024 only after Sununu waited long enough that it would not take effect for the Nov. 5 general election. The law requires people who are newly registering to vote in New Hampshire — or who have been removed from the voting rolls because of a lack of activity — to produce documentation of citizenship in order to register and vote, with no exceptions. The law does not apply to people who are already registered to vote in the state but have moved to a different municipality or polling ward. Supporters of the law say it is an important safeguard against potential fraudulent voting, and will stop people from casting their ballot if they are not U.S. citizens. 'You have to be a qualified voter to cast a ballot,' said Rep. Ross Berry, a Weare Republican and the chairman of the House Election Law Committee, in an interview. 'And in order to be a qualified voter, you have to prove you are who you say you are: you're a citizen of the United States, you are 18 years old, and you live where you say you live. It's a very common-sense thing that if you don't wait until the last minute to do it is not an issue.' Previously, new registrants could sign a legally binding affidavit attesting that they were citizens, but Berry and other supporters of the law argue that system still allowed those people to cast ballots even if they were investigated and charged later. 'If you wake up on election day and decide you want to go vote, which is your right, you're going to need the documents,' Berry said. 'And I'm sorry, but the affidavits were not a document. That was nothing more than a signature on a piece of paper.' To St. Germain and other advocates, the number of people turned away this month suggests the new law has created disruptions even in relatively low turnout town meeting elections. And they indicate there could be more people turned away from the polls during the state primary and general elections in 2026, St. Germain said. 'What we saw on March 11 made it clear that access to the ballot is under attack in New Hampshire, and voters cannot afford more restrictions that prevent them from exercising their right to vote,' she said. Currently there are two lawsuits against the law, House Bill 1569. In one, brought in part by the American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire, a trial will take place Feb. 9, 2026, in the U.S. District Court of New Hampshire, according to Henry Klementowicz, senior staff attorney for the ACLU of New Hampshire. A second lawsuit was filed in the same federal court by the New Hampshire Youth Movement with the help of the Elias Group, a firm helmed by election law attorney Marc Elias. Both lawsuits argue the law violates the First and 14th amendments of the U.S. Constitution because it creates too high a burden to register and vote. Those lawsuits were filed in late 2024, after HB 1569 became law but before it had taken effect in any elections, Klementowicz said. Now, Klementowicz said plaintiffs in the ACLU lawsuit may mention the new numbers indicating the law did prevent some people from immediately voting. 'I think that the results from the town elections could be used as evidence in the case,' Klementowicz said during the press conference. Despite supporting the law, Berry agrees that more work needs to be done to inform voters about the need to bring the documents to register. 'If I had any criticism, it would be that there wasn't enough broadcast about what you're going to have to do if you're going to register on election day,' he said. 'And I think that the state should take a proactive approach to get people to register before election day. Because if you're waiting to register on election day, you're basically saying, 'God, I hope nothing goes wrong.'' Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers are considering a number of bills that would tighten voting registration further, particularly for absentee voters. House Bill 217 would require people voting absentee to also produce documentary proof of citizenship, age, domicile, and identity in order to register; Senate Bill 213 would apply similar documentary requirements. HB 217 is up for a vote on the House floor during its sessions Wednesday and Thursday, while SB 213 has already passed the Senate.
Yahoo
14-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
New voter ID law in effect for 2025 New Hampshire town meeting season
Under the new law, all voters must bring identification to vote in New Hampshire without exception. (Photo by Will Steinfeld/New Hampshire Bulletin) As town meeting season nears, the New Hampshire Secretary of State's Office is reminding residents of a new voter ID law. House Bill 1569, which took effect days after the Nov. 5, 2024, general election and is now law, requires all voters to bring identification to vote in New Hampshire without exception. It eliminates a previous provision that allowed voters to sign a legally binding affidavit attesting to their residency if they did not have identification. Under the new law, if a voter does not have identification at the polls, they will be turned away and asked to retrieve it. Identification can be a driver's license or a non-driver ID. Voters do not need a New Hampshire driver's license in order to vote; if they are already registered to vote, they can use an out-of-state license. The new law has also changed what is needed to register to vote. It requires new voters to New Hampshire to provide hard copy proof of their U.S. citizenship – through a passport, birth certificate, naturalization papers, or other documents – in order to register. Previously, that could also be handled through an affidavit. 'The law no longer authorizes an applicant to complete affidavits as an alternative means of proving their qualifications as a voter. If an applicant does not provide acceptable documentary proof of identity, age, United States citizenship, and/or domicile, they are not eligible to be registered to vote.' People registering to vote in their town should bring documents showing proof of citizenship; proof of identity and age, such as a driver's license or government ID; and proof they are domiciled in that town, which can be done with a driver's license, resident vehicle registration, rental lease agreement, or utility bill, the secretary of state's office said. The proof-of-citizenship requirement does not technically apply to people who are registered in the New Hampshire voter rolls but have since moved to another town and are re-registering. However, because not every town may be able to easily confirm a voter's previous registration, voting rights groups and the Secretary of State's Office recommend that everyone registering to vote bring along proof of citizenship if they can. Since HB 1569 was signed by Gov. Chris Sununu in September, voting rights groups have waged two separate lawsuits against it in federal court. But the law is still in effect for this town meeting season.
