Appeals court keeps block on New Hampshire voting restrictions

In a win for voters, a federal appeals court Friday kept in place a lower court ruling that blocked key provisions of New Hampshire’s 2024 anti-voting law. 

The decision, which comes just days before the state’s Sept. 8 primary, keeps in place an affidavit option that allows eligible voters who lack citizenship documents at registration to attest to their eligibility.

The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals denied state officials’ request to stay — or temporarily suspend — a May ruling that found portions of House Bill 1569 unconstitutional. 

The 2024 law eliminated qualified voter affidavits, which allowed people without documentary proof of citizenship to swear under penalty of law that they were eligible to vote. It also eliminated challenged voter affidavits, which voters could use after their eligibility was successfully challenged.

The ruling, however, does not prevent New Hampshire from requiring voters to prove citizenship. The district court stressed that voters remain subject to a citizenship requirement. 

Instead, the injunction restored the affidavit alternatives that HB 1569 eliminated. 

In Friday’s order, the three-judge appeals court did not decide whether the state will ultimately win its appeal. But it found that state officials failed to show they would suffer irreparable harm if the lower court’s order remained in effect — pointing in particular to officials’ delays in seeking emergency relief.

“Defendants-Appellants’ relatively leisurely pursuit of a stay when facing reasons for expediency and the State’s restoration of the affidavit system undermine Defendants-Appellants’ claim of irreparable harm,” the court wrote.

The court also emphasized the risk to voters who may have relied on the secretary of state’s public statements that qualified voter affidavits would be available for the upcoming elections. 

New Hampshire offers fewer early voting options than most states, the judges noted, increasing the stakes for voters registering at the polls.

“This result would potentially prevent some voters from participating in the electoral process,” the court wrote, describing what could happen if the injunction were abruptly paused and voters arrived without newly required documents.

Chief U.S. District Judge Samantha Elliott permanently blocked the provisions after a nine-day trial, finding that eliminating the affidavits significantly burdened eligible voters while doing little to advance the state’s asserted interests. The state’s appeal of that ruling remains pending.