Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

New Hampshire's top court strikes down complicated voter registration law

New Hampshire voter

The New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled that a 2017 voter registration law must be stricken in its entirety.

Jodi Hilton/Getty Images

The New Hampshire Supreme Court last week struck down four-year-old voter registration rules, finding they imposed "unreasonable burdens on the right to vote."

In a unanimous 4-0 decision on Friday, the court concurred with a lower court's ruling that found the law unconstitutional, and therefore must be stricken in its entirety. Critics said the law made the state's voter registration process convoluted and confusing, especially for college students.

This victory for voting rights advocates came on the heels of a U.S. Supreme Court decision that some decried as particularly damaging to minority voters. On Thursday, the high court's conservative majority ruled to uphold two restrictive voting laws in Arizona.


The New Hampshire law, which was drafted and passed by Republicans in 2017, created a new process for people who registered to vote within 30 days of an election, or on Election Day itself, without a photo ID. Such people were then required to fill out forms and provide documentation to prove they were New Hampshire residents.

The law allowed those voters to cast a ballot if they did not have the necessary documents immediately available, but if they missed a deadline for submission, the voters could have been subject to wrongful voting penalties, including a fine of up to $5,000 and a misdemeanor charge.

The New Hampshire Supreme Court agreed with the Superior Court's 2020 ruling that found this process was difficult to navigate and potentially deterring people from registering to vote, as well as overly burdensome on voters.

The Superior Court also ruled that this law had an "unequal impact" on young people, in particular college students, because they tend to change addresses often and therefore need to update their voter registration information more frequently.

The New Hampshire chapter of the League of Women Voters, which was one of the plaintiffs challenging this law, said the ruling was "a fitting reminder that voting rights are at the heart of our democracy."

"Today's ruling struck down a harmful voter registration law designed to penalize voters and limit who can participate in our elections," the nonprofit organization said in a statement. "While we are pleased with this verdict, we must ensure that further attempts to restrict voting rights in New Hampshire will be curtailed by this ruling. We will continue to be vigilant if more voter suppression bills move forward in committee hearings this fall."

On Friday, Republican Gov. Chris Sununu, who signed this measure into law in 2017, said it was "disappointing that these common sense reforms were not supported by our Supreme Court."

"But we have to respect their decision, and I encourage the Legislature to take the court's opinion into account and continue working to make common sense reforms to ensure the integrity of New Hampshire's elections," he said.

Read More

Why Doing Immigration the “White Way” Is Wrong

A close up of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement badge.

Getty Images, Tennessee Witney

Why Doing Immigration the “White Way” Is Wrong

The president is granting refugee status to white South Africans. Meanwhile, he is issuing travel bans, unsure about his duty to uphold due process, fighting birthright citizenship, and backing massive human rights breaches against people of color, including deporting citizens and people authorized to be here.

The administration’s escalating immigration enforcement—marked by “fast-track” deportations or disappearances without due process—signal a dangerous leveling-up of aggressive anti-immigration policies and authoritarian tactics. In the face of the immigration chaos that we are now in, we could—and should—turn our efforts toward making immigration policies less racist, more efficient, and more humane because America’s promise is built on freedom and democracy, not terror. As social scientists, we know that in America, thinking people can and should “just get documented” ignores the very real and large barriers embedded in our systems.

Keep ReadingShow less
Insider trading in Washington, DC

U.S. senators and representatives with access to non-public information are permitted to buy and sell individual stocks. It’s not just unethical; it sends the message that the game is rigged.

Getty Images, Greggory DiSalvo

Insider Trading: If CEOs Can’t Do It, Why Can Congress?

Ivan Boesky. Martha Stewart. Jeffrey Skilling.

Each became infamous for using privileged, non-public information to profit unfairly from the stock market. They were prosecuted. They served time. Because insider trading is a crime that threatens public trust and distorts free markets.

Keep ReadingShow less
Supreme Court Changes the Game on Federal Environmental Reviews

A pump jack seen in a southeast New Mexico oilfield.

Getty Images, Daniel A. Leifheit

Supreme Court Changes the Game on Federal Environmental Reviews

Getting federal approval for permits to build bridges, wind farms, highways and other major infrastructure projects has long been a complicated and time-consuming process. Despite growing calls from both parties for Congress and federal agencies to reform that process, there had been few significant revisions – until now.

In one fell swoop, the U.S. Supreme Court has changed a big part of the game.

Keep ReadingShow less