Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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

You can’t hide from war crimes by calling them ‘fake news’

U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth speaks during a cabinet meeting hosted by President Donald Trump in the Cabinet Room of the White House in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday, Dec. 2, 2025.

(Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

You can’t hide from war crimes by calling them ‘fake news’

Since September of this year, the United States military has been blowing up boats allegedly trafficking drugs in the Caribbean.

Whether these attacks are legal is hotly debated. Congress hasn’t declared war or even authorized the use of force against “narco-terrorists” or against Venezuela, the apparent real target of a massive U.S. military build-up off its coast.

Keep ReadingShow less
World AIDS Day and the Fight to Sustain PEPFAR
a woman in a white shirt holding a red ribbon
Photo by Bermix Studio on Unsplash

World AIDS Day and the Fight to Sustain PEPFAR

Every year on December 1, World AIDS Day isn't just a time to look back, but it’s a call to action. This year, that call echoes louder than ever. Even as medicine advances and treatments improve, support from political leaders remains shaky. When the Trump administration threatened to roll back the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), it became clear just how vulnerable such critical programs can be. The effort to weaken or even dismantle PEPFAR wasn't just a policy debate; it lifted the curtain on how fragile moral commitments are. Revealing how easily leaders can forget the human stakes when political winds shift.

Despite these challenges, PEPFAR endures. It remains among the world's most effective global health efforts. For over twenty years, it has received bipartisan backing, saved more than 25 million lives, and strengthened public health systems across dozens of countries, notably in Africa and the Caribbean. Its ongoing existence stands as a testament to what is possible when compassion and strategic investment align. Yet the program's continued effectiveness is anything but guaranteed. As attempts to chip away at its foundation recur, PEPFAR's future depends on unflagging advocacy and renewed resolve to keep it robust and responsive.

Keep ReadingShow less
Illustration of the state of Texas' shape and a piece of mail.
(Emily Scherer for The 19th)

Texas’ New Abortion Ban Aims To Stop Doctors From Sending Abortion Pills to the State

Texas’ massive new abortion law taking effect this week could escalate the national fight over mailing abortion pills.

House Bill 7 represents abortion opponents’ most ambitious effort to halt telehealth abortions, which have helped patients get around strict bans in Texas and other states after Roe v. Wade was overturned. The law, which goes into effect December 4, creates civil penalties for health care providers who make abortion medications available in Texas, allowing any private citizen to sue medical providers for a minimum penalty of $100,000. The bill’s backers have said it would also allow suits against drug manufacturers. It would not enable suits against the people who get abortions.

Keep ReadingShow less