CONCORD, NH – House Election Law Chairman Ross Berry (R-Weare) responded to today’s federal court decision striking down HB 1569:
“I am not surprised that an unelected judge ‘appointed’ by the autopen in 2021 would push far-left Democratic policies on the people of New Hampshire. The vast majority of Granite Staters support common sense election integrity laws. HB 1569 required voters to prove their citizenship prior to casting a ballot,” Chairman Berry began.
“This isn’t the first time a progressive judge has ignored the law and precedent to push a political agenda. It’s a pattern. Democrats know their policies are deeply unpopular in the Granite State. That is why they must rely on unelected far-left judges to force their ideology onto voters. They tried this same trick with their vehicle inspection sticker scheme. Their racket failed then, and it will fail now,” he continued.
Chairman Berry has also provided the following background:
“Here’s what matters legally: Judge Elliott’s decision is wrong on the law itself.
In Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (2021) the United States Supreme Court was clear that states may act against election fraud ‘without waiting for it to occur and be detected within its own borders.” Yet Judge Elliott demanded ‘concrete evidence’ of noncitizen voting before letting New Hampshire verify citizenship. That approach conflicts with the Supreme Court’s recognition that states may act proactively to protect election integrity.
She also applied the wrong standard of review. Under Burdick v. Takushi (1992), strict scrutiny applies only when a law ‘severely’ restricts the right to vote, and laws imposing ‘reasonable, nondiscriminatory restrictions’ are justified by the state’s important regulatory interests. Asking a voter to prove citizenship is exactly that kind of reasonable requirement. In Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (2008), the Supreme Court upheld a voter ID law even though the record contained no evidence of in-person voter impersonation fraud in Indiana. Judge Elliott flipped that framework on its head.
Plus, in Purcell v. Gonzalez (2006), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that ‘a State indisputably has a compelling interest in preserving the integrity of its election process. Judge Elliott invented a requirement the Constitution does not impose,” Chairman Berry explained.
“This decision contradicts Supreme Court precedent. I urge the state to appeal this ruling.
House Republicans will continue the fight for free and secure elections, in spite of what a far-left radical judge may try to force down our throat,” he concluded