A federal judge on Thursday delivered a sweeping rebuke to one of New Hampshire’s most contentious election laws, declaring that a 2024 requirement forcing first-time voters to present documentary proof of U.S. citizenship is unconstitutional. The ruling goes into effect immediately, restoring the state’s longstanding practice of allowing new voters to sign a legally binding affidavit confirming their citizenship and residency.

U.S. District Judge Samantha Elliott issued a 98-page decision concluding that the state failed to demonstrate a compelling interest in the law. As NHPR reported, the ruling directly undermines the argument that strict documentary requirements are necessary to prevent noncitizen voting, a concern that underpinned the law when it was signed by then-Gov. Chris Sununu in 2024.

“New Hampshire’s interest in election integrity cannot justify the burden on New Hampshire voters based on the evidence in this case,” Elliott wrote.

The decision marks the end, at least for now, of House Bill 1569, which required any person registering to vote for the first time in New Hampshire to present a U.S. passport, birth certificate, or other government-issued proof of citizenship. The law eliminated the Qualified Voter Affidavit, a form that had allowed new registrants to swear under penalty of perjury that they were U.S. citizens and residents of the community where they sought to vote.

What the Trial Revealed

The case went to a nine-day trial earlier this year, and what emerged from that proceeding cut against the core premise of the law. According to testimony presented in court, just one person in the past 26 years has been prosecuted for knowingly voting as a non-U.S. citizen in New Hampshire.

That statistic sat at the center of Elliott’s analysis. She wrote that “such miniscule numbers strongly undercut any legitimate concern about election integrity vis-a-vis noncitizen voting and, consequently, the state’s interest in addressing it.” Even a handful of other incidents involved permanent residents with green cards who were inadvertently allowed to vote due to confusion by local election officials, not deliberate fraud.

The state’s own top election official, Secretary of State David Scanlan, testified during the trial that noncitizen voting is “essentially non-existent” in New Hampshire. Elliott noted that concession explicitly in her ruling.

Backers of the law were unable to provide conclusive proof that non-citizens were regularly or systematically participating in New Hampshire elections. Without that evidence, the court found the law’s burdens on voters could not be legally justified.

Expert witnesses testified that the documentary requirements affected a significant share of eligible voters. Nearly 40 percent of Americans do not have a U.S. passport, according to State Department data cited during the proceedings. Married women who took a spouse’s last name faced an additional obstacle: their birth certificate often would not match the name on their current identification, creating a verification problem at the polls.

The Affidavit System and What It Meant for Granite Staters

New Hampshire is one of a small number of states that allows people to register to vote at the polls on Election Day itself. That same-day registration system has been a point of pride for state election officials who have long pointed to it as evidence of New Hampshire’s civic culture and high voter participation rates.

Under the previous system, new registrants who arrived at the polls without certain documents could sign the Qualified Voter Affidavit. Signing it exposed them to criminal prosecution if they lied, meaning the form carried real legal weight. Election law experts testified during the trial that the affidavit was itself a method of proving citizenship, not merely an exception to the requirement.

Elliott agreed. “A sworn affidavit capable of exposing an affiant to criminal prosecution is a method of proving citizenship and not an exception to that requirement,” she wrote. “Moreover, the evidence shows that it is the only method of proof available to a significant number of New Hampshire voters.”

On Election Day 2024, more than 10,000 first-time voters used an affidavit to register, according to data presented at trial. Supporters of HB 1569 argued that the state lacked sufficient resources on Election Day to investigate that many new registrants for potential fraud. Critics countered that the criminal penalty attached to the affidavit was precisely the deterrent that made mass real-time verification unnecessary.

A Law Born From a National Wave

HB 1569 was part of a broader national effort, backed largely by Republican lawmakers in states across the country, to tighten voter registration requirements in the years after the 2020 presidential election. Supporters argued the law addressed a legitimate gap in New Hampshire’s election security, even if actual fraud was rare, because the state’s lean registration system theoretically created an opening for abuse.

Former Gov. Sununu signed the bill into law in 2024 before leaving office. At the time, he and other Republicans stressed that they believed New Hampshire’s elections were already secure and the law simply added another layer of verification. But critics pointed out an inherent tension in that argument: if the system was already secure, the practical effect of the new restrictions would fall primarily on legitimate voters who lacked easy access to documents.

State Republicans also passed a related measure allowing local election officials to look up a voter’s vital records, including place of birth, if that voter arrived at a polling place without documents. Plaintiffs argued that this provision was inadequate because polling locations would be badly understaffed to handle a large volume of such requests on Election Day, when lines are already long and time-sensitive.

Who Challenged the Law

The legal challenge to HB 1569 was filed by the League of Women Voters of New Hampshire, the New Hampshire Youth Movement, and the ACLU of New Hampshire. The coalition argued the law unconstitutionally burdened the right to vote without a sufficient government justification.

Henry Klementowicz, an attorney with the ACLU, said the ruling vindicated voters who had been placed in an impossible position.

“Making it harder to vote is a clear attack on one of our most fundamental of rights, and this law is consigned to the dustbin of history where it belongs,” Klementowicz said.

Not everyone accepted the outcome. Rep. Ross Berry, a Republican from Weare who chairs the House Election Law Committee and also co-sponsored the bill that moved New Hampshire’s primary to June, accused the court of political overreach. “This isn’t the first time a progressive judge has ignored the law and precedent to push a political agenda,” he said. “It’s a pattern.”

What Happens Next

As of Thursday evening, the New Hampshire Department of Justice had not confirmed whether it would appeal the ruling. A spokesperson for the Secretary of State’s office said the office was still reviewing the 98-page decision.

An appeal would go to the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston. If pursued, it would likely take months to resolve, meaning the state would operate under the restored affidavit system for at least the 2026 midterm elections. New Hampshire has competitive U.S. Senate and U.S. House races on the ballot this fall, along with hundreds of state legislative contests.

The ruling does not affect other voter identification requirements that remain on the books. New Hampshire still requires photo identification at the polls for voters who are already registered. What changes immediately is the ability of first-time registrants to use the sworn affidavit system when they lack other qualifying documents.

For the more than 10,000 first-time voters who typically rely on same-day registration each Election Day, Thursday’s ruling restores a pathway to the ballot that had been effectively blocked since the 2024 law took effect.

The case adds to a growing body of federal court decisions scrutinizing voter registration restrictions enacted in recent years. Courts in multiple states have weighed whether documentary requirements impose unconstitutional burdens on eligible voters, with outcomes varying based on the evidence and statutes involved in each case.

In New Hampshire, the evidence presented at trial showed a state where election fraud is exceptionally rare, where election officials themselves testified to the security of the existing system, and where the practical effect of the law fell hardest on voters who lacked easy access to documents rather than on any genuine fraudulent threat. Judge Elliott found that balance tips decisively against the law.

For related coverage, see our reporting on New Hampshire Libertarians Ejected From National Party After Chair’s Mocking ….

For related coverage, see our reporting on Federal Judge Considers Whether to Force New Hampshire to Hand Over Confident….

Why did the judge strike down New Hampshire's proof of citizenship voting law? Judge Samantha Elliott found that the state failed to show a compelling government interest because the evidence showed noncitizen voting is nearly nonexistent in New Hampshire. Only one person has been prosecuted for it in 26 years, and the Secretary of State himself testified that the problem is "essentially non-existent." Without evidence of a real and widespread threat, the court found the burdens the law imposed on voters could not be constitutionally justified.
What is the Qualified Voter Affidavit and why does it matter? The Qualified Voter Affidavit is a form that allows first-time voters who lack certain documents to swear under penalty of perjury that they are U.S. citizens and residents of the community where they are registering. HB 1569 eliminated it, but Judge Elliott ruled that a sworn affidavit subject to criminal prosecution is itself a valid method of proving citizenship, not just an exception to a documentation requirement. With Thursday's ruling, the affidavit system is restored immediately.
How many New Hampshire voters use the affidavit system on Election Day? More than 10,000 first-time voters used a Qualified Voter Affidavit to register on Election Day 2024, according to data presented during the trial. New Hampshire is one of only a few states that allows same-day voter registration, making this a significant pathway for citizens who are eligible but have not previously registered.
Who challenged the proof of citizenship law? The League of Women Voters of New Hampshire, the New Hampshire Youth Movement, and the ACLU of New Hampshire filed the legal challenge after the law was signed in 2024. They argued the law unconstitutionally burdened the right to vote without adequate justification given the near-total absence of evidence of noncitizen voting in the state.
Will New Hampshire appeal the ruling? As of Thursday evening, the NH Department of Justice had not confirmed whether it plans to appeal. An appeal would go to the First Circuit Court of Appeals and would likely take months to resolve. That means New Hampshire will almost certainly operate without the proof of citizenship requirement during the 2026 midterm election cycle regardless of whether an appeal is filed.

The voting rights fight in New Hampshire is part of a broader legal and legislative battle over election integrity measures that has played out in courts nationwide. For Granite Staters following these issues, earlier reporting on federal demands for New Hampshire voter data and guidance for college students after a school ID ban took effect provides important context for how voting rights questions have evolved in the state over the past two years.