Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Would-be N.H. primary voters argue laws are stacked against them

New Hampshire capitol

A pair of New Hampshire laws are being contested in separate court cases over claims they suppress people's ability to vote.

DenisTangneyJr/Getty Images

Less than 10 weeks from the opening Democratic presidential primary, would-be voters in New Hampshire are fighting two separate battles in federal court alleging their franchise is being suppressed by new state laws.

This week, a lawsuit brought by the state Democratic Party and the League of Women Voters went to trial. The groups allege that a 2017 law creates an unconstitutional burden on people who want to register less than a month before an election.

Last week, a federal judge declined to stop — at least in time for the Feb. 11 primary — a law requiring college students and others to establish full-fledged residency in order to register.

Both the two-tier system with added paperwork for late-in-the-campaign registrations and the added residency requirements for voters were created when the Legislature was in Republican hands. The GOP lawmakers acted after President Trump alleged without evidence that there had been widespread voter fraud in the state, which Hillary Clinton carried by less than 3,000 votes in 2016.


The Democrats now control both chambers in Concord and have signaled plans to try to reverse both laws next year, although GOP Gov. Chris Sununu would be expected to veto such bills.

At the opening of this week's trial on Tuesday, both sides agreed that fraud cases are rare in the state. But the plaintiffs maintained the new documentation requirements were both confusing and intimidating, while the state's lawyers described the changes as having increased trust in the election system by ensuring people are registered in the place they live on Election Day.

Under the law, if someone registers within 30 days of an election or at a polling place on Election Day but does not have proper identification, they may sign an affidavit promising to quickly mail or hand deliver the papers to the town clerk. Failure to follow through results in the voter's name being purged from the rolls.

The other lawsuit has already gone to trial. The American Civil Liberties Union has sued on behalf of two Dartmouth College students, who say their ability to vote in the primary is being unconstitutionally stifled by what amounts to a poll tax. Many of the Democratic presidential candidates have taken up their complaint while campaigning in the state.

The new law at issue ended New Hampshire's distinction as the only state that didn't require proof of residency to vote. Now, out-of-state college students who want to vote in New Hampshire must have a state driver's license and register their cars in the state — similar to requirements in several other states.

District Judge Joseph LaPlante ruled the plaintiffs had not yet proved their claims. But he said he might reverse his order after hearing more arguments on several questions of law.

Attorney Henry Klementowicz of the ACLU said the group would continue to fight the case. "Every eligible voter has the right to vote without confusion, without fear, and without the thought that maybe it would be easier if they vote at all," he said. "Despite evidence that college students, young people, town clerks, and political campaigns are confused about what this law means, the court did not eliminate this confusion."


Read More

Activists march across Edmund Pettus Bridge.

Activists march across Edmund Pettus Bridge on May 16, 2026 in Selma, Alabama.

Jason Davis / Getty Images

Racism & MAGA-Gerrymandering—Combating the Noxious Mix

There is an old saying: If anyone insists something definitely is not about money; it is definitely about money. The Supreme Court’s right-wing majority claims that its recent election districting rulings are not about abetting racism or siding with MAGA politics, but they are definitely about both.

The Court’s recent Louisiana v. Callais decision cynically demands that anyone challenging election districts as violating the Voting Rights Act must “disentangle race from politics” and show that intentional racial discrimination, rather than politics, was the motivator when minority communities are divided and segments are placed into majority white districts.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Bipartisan War on Independent Voters
A pole with a sign that says polling station
Photo by Phil Hearing on Unsplash

The Bipartisan War on Independent Voters

The Washington Post editorial board penned a bold piece (Bill Cassidy and America’s Increasingly Broken Primary System) in the wake of President Trump’s successful vendetta against the Louisiana Senator. They could have taken the easy route and pointed a finger at the Republicans. Instead, they took issue with both parties and their insatiable appetite to control the rules of the game and punish anyone who steps out of line.

In a media landscape dominated by partisan propaganda, it’s refreshing to read an opinion piece that encourages readers to actually look at what’s happening.

Keep ReadingShow less
A male senior stands in the shadow of a Social Security card with bite missing.

How immigration policy, declining birth rates, and an aging population are pushing Social Security and Medicare toward a fiscal crisis. Explore the hidden link between immigrant labor, retirement security, and America’s demographic future.

DNY59 / Getty Images

Trump’s Immigration Crackdown Has a Hidden Cost: Social Security

The Trump administration frames the immigration debate around borders, crime, culture, and national identity. This conceals an uncomfortable reality for the administration: America’s retirement system increasingly depends on immigrant labor to survive.

That dependence is not ideological. It is demographic, rooted in the shrinking ratio between workers paying into the system and retirees drawing benefits from it.

Keep ReadingShow less
Tensions were High as Representatives Debated Allegations Against the Southern Poverty Law Center

Members of the House Judiciary Committee during the hearing on the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Credit: Olivia Ardito

Tensions were High as Representatives Debated Allegations Against the Southern Poverty Law Center

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The House Judiciary Committee held a hearing last Wednesday examining claims that the Southern Poverty Law Center had funded the very hate groups the center aims to dismantle. Tensions were high as Republicans and Democrats fired back at each other. Noticeably absent was a representative from the center, a non-profit that since 1971 has fought for racial justice and against white supremacy.

The hearing came after the Texas Attorney General Ken Pax­ton announced last Monday that he was investigating the center. The U.S. Justice Department indicted the Southern Poverty Law Center in April for allegedly funneling money to people associated with violent extremist groups. The group has flatly rejected the accusations. While Republicans backed these claims, Democrats viewed the allegations as part of the Trump-backed efforts to hinder “DEI” and other racial justice initiatives.

Keep ReadingShow less