MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) - A New Hampshire judge on Thursday tried to strike a balance between concerns and confusion surrounding a disputed voter registration law when he allowed it to be used only until Election Day.
But the ruling by Hillsborough Superior Court Judge Kenneth Brown doesn’t end the fight over the law.
On Friday, the New Hampshire Supreme Court is expected to deal with a request from the state for a stay of Brown’s order and allow the law to be used on Election Day and beyond. The law requires additional documentation from voters who move to the state within 30 days of an election.
The current upheaval began Monday when Brown blocked the state from using the law, saying it would create longer lines at the polls, was confusing to understand and did nothing to address voter fraud. But on Thursday, Brown amended his ruling to allow the law to be used until Nov. 6. The state complained that Monday’s order was creating confusion among thousands of election officials - a complaint they said wasn’t resolved by the amended order.
“There has been a herculean feat in order to train those election officials in the last year on Senate Bill 3. They have the Senate Bill 3. They are prepared to use those forms,” Associate Attorney General Anne Edwards told reporters, adding that they have gotten calls from election officials using the wrong forms. “To now give them a new form that they have never seen before and which they won’t see until the beginning of next week at the earliest is going to cause confusion.”
Brown, who Thursday rejected a request by the state to halt his order, seemed unmoved by concerns that election officials would be unprepared to revert back to the older forms.
“Going forward, I don’t think there should be any confusion at all from the order,” Brown said.
The law was passed after President Donald Trump alleged widespread voter fraud in New Hampshire, though there’s been no evidence to support that claim. Democrats challenged the measure during legislative debates, but Republicans contended that existing state laws created the potential for fraud. They said the new law ensures all votes are valid and argued it wouldn’t suppress voter turnout.
The state’s Democratic Party and the League of Women Voters separately filed lawsuits, arguing the law was unconstitutional and should be thrown out. Those lawsuits were eventually merged and an earlier ruling blocked penalties for those violating the law.
Bill Christie, a lawyer representing the Democratic Party, said the concerns about confusion were overblown and that all this order does is revert back to a system used in the 2016 election “which went off very smoothly.” Under the 2016 rules, an individual can register to vote without presenting any proof he or she lives in the town or ward where they are voting.
“The only people saying they are confused are the people that lost the case,” he said, adding that election officials are much more comfortable with the 2016 forms than they are with those from the Senate Bill 3.
“There was evidence at trial that election officials were able to use the 2016 forms and were able to use the 2016 forms easily. It is just not credible that they are confused by those forms,” he said. “To every alleged problem that exists, Judge Brown’s order covers it.”
Despite their fears, state officials said they would do their best to ensure Election Day goes off without a hitch at the more than 300 polling sites - whichever way Friday’s ruling goes.
“We are going to do everything we can to make sure the election officials are informed and that they are, to the extent possible, in compliance with the court’s order,” Deputy Secretary of State David Scanlan said. “We fully expect, despite the obstacles, that the voter’s experience is going to be the same as they have experienced in the past.”
Please read our comment policy before commenting.