By David Connell, legal services counsel with the New Hampshire Local Government Center’s Legal Services and Government Affairs Department
The following summary is based on an opinion of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire. Federal district court cases apply federal law and sometimes New Hampshire law. Their interpretations of New Hampshire law are not binding on the New Hampshire Supreme Court.
Teng, a naturalized citizen originally from China, brought a civil rights suit under 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983 against the towns of Kensington and Danville and local officials, alleging violations of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution for denying her a license to carry a concealed handgun; the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments for denying her the right to vote on account of her race; and the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause for refusing, on account of her race, to prosecute a neighbor who allegedly assaulted her. The defendants moved for summary judgment.
Voting rights claims. At the 2004 election in Kensington, Teng became angry with the moderator and town clerk, used abusive language and brandished the sharp end of her pencil near the moderator’s face. When asked to leave if she had finished voting, she walked out without voting. At the September 2008 state primary, Teng, now a resident of Danville, demanded to vote in both primaries and was denied. She alleged she had been denied her right to vote on both occasions on account of her race. The court ruled that Teng had shown no restriction on her voting rights in Kensington because the moderator asked her leave only if she had completed voting. In any event, the court noted that “the government has a compelling and non-discriminatory interest in the ‘avoidance of … disruption at polling places….’” [citation omitted]. Moreover, the three-year statute of limitations on civil rights claims had expired. By the same token, the Danville moderator had acted properly by simply requiring Teng to choose one primary election to vote in, a legitimate restriction that has been repeatedly upheld by the federal courts.
Gun rights claims. The court easily disposed of the Second Amendment claims. Teng had been denied licenses to carry a concealed handgun for failure to complete the application process in both Kensington and Danville. But these actions did not involve the Second Amendment. “The defendants did not ban her from possessing handguns, or even from carrying them. They merely asked her to provide more background information for use in determining whether she was suitable for concealed carrying.” The Kensington claim was also barred by the statute of limitations.
Refusal-to-prosecute claim. In June 2007, Danville police responded to a report of an altercation between Teng and a neighbor who was raking his yard. The neighbor and some witnesses said that the two had struggled over a garden hoe and Teng accidentally received a cigarette burn in the fracas. Teng alleged that the neighbor assaulted her with the hoe and intentionally burned her. The police department reviewed the evidence and declined to charge the neighbor. Teng alleged selective prosecution on account of her race. The court noted that a claim of this nature requires “clear evidence” of both discriminatory intent and effect. The court found that the police had a non-discriminatory reason not to charge the neighbor: “a weak case.”