In 2017 SB3 amended voter registration laws imposing new proof of domicile requirements. Prior to the statute’s effective date suit was instituted arguing the law was unconstitutional as it would effectively suppress voter turnout. Prior Superior Court orders enjoined enforcement of the criminal and civil penalties associated with SB 3, and later enjoining SB 3 in its entirety from going into effect.
The Superior Court has now ruled that the SB 3 mandated voter registration form was unreadable and difficult to understand, and that SB3 will increase registration time for voters resulting in longer lines. Strong trial court evidence demonstrated that SB 3 would suppress voter turnout. Furthermore, SB 3 was unique when compared to other States by criminalizing the failure to return paperwork relating to election registration. The Court concluded that SB 3 disproportionally burdens young, mobile, low-income and homeless voters, and thus imposes an unreasonable and discriminatory burden on the rights of voters in New Hampshire. That any perceiving increase in the integrity of New Hampshire’s elections due to SB 3 is illusory. Consequently, SB 3 in its entirety is facially unconstitutional. SB 3 was also declared unconstitutional due to a denial of equal protection. The State of New Hampshire failed to meet its burden to prove under intermediate scrutiny that the burdens imposed on voting were necessary to advance the important governmental interest of thwarting voting fraud.
SB 3 struck down by the Court as unconstitutional for unreasonably burdening the right to vote and violating equal protection under the New Hampshire Constitution.