New Hampshire asks appeals court to quickly dismiss DOJ’s voter roll grab

New Hampshire could be the site of the next bruising defeat for the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in its nationwide campaign to obtain states’ unredacted voter rolls. 

Secretary of State David Scanlan (R) asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit Tuesday to quickly dismiss the DOJ’s voter roll lawsuit, arguing that a full briefing is not necessary because the department’s case is so weak.

“This appeal should be so dismissed as there is no substantial question as to the facial insufficiency of the federal government’s demand for New Hampshire’s Statewide Voter Registration List (SVRL),” Scanlan wrote in his motion for summary disposition. 

New Hampshire is one of 31 states and Washington, D.C. that the DOJ sued to obtain unredacted statewide voter registration lists that include the sensitive personal data of every registered voter. The department is currently 0-23 in its voter roll grab — and it also lost an appeal to the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit.

Last summer, the DOJ demanded access to each state’s full, unredacted voter rolls under the guise of “voter list maintenance.” After most states refused to comply, citing privacy concerns and claiming the request was unlawful, the DOJ launched a legal blitz. The department argued that, under Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 (CRA) and the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), states must hand over full voter registration records upon request to ensure clean voter rolls.

In June, a Republican-appointed federal judge dismissed the DOJ’s New Hampshire lawsuit, rejecting the department’s argument that Title III of the CRA gives the attorney general authority to compel states to surrender complete statewide voter registration databases containing sensitive data. 

But the DOJ nonetheless appealed the New Hampshire ruling.
Now, New Hampshire is asking the 1st Circuit to quickly trash that appeal, saying the DOJ isn’t just wrong about the law, but is also doing a bad job making its case. 

“Setting aside the factual accuracy of the assertion that the federal government’s basis is obvious or easily inferable from the purpose stated in the letter, the law clearly and unequivocally requires demands made under the CRA to contain a written statement of the basis therefor and not simply that the basis be somehow inferable from the purpose,” Scanlan said. “This is not a high bar.”

The DOJ’s voter roll losses in Maine, Rhode Island and Massachusetts have all also been appealed to the 1st Circuit.