Hide Transcript Show Transcript

WEBVTT SAME-DAY REGISTRATION ARE COLLEGE STUDENTS. THE ROOTS OF CONTROVERSY AND QUARREL BETWEEN REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS ACROSS THE STATE -- A SENATE BILL THREE REQUIRES THOSE THAT REGISTER TO VOTE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF AN ELECTION TO PROVIDE PROOF OF WHERE THEY LIVE OR PROMISE TO PROVIDE THAT DOCUMENTATION LATER. MIXED REACTION FRIDAY NIGHT FROM BOTH SIDES. >> WE NOW KNOW THAT WHEN WE GO TO CAST OUR VOTE, WE ARE CASTING OUR VOTE WITH OUR NEIGHBORS AND OUR FRIENDS. CHERISE: THE NEW HAMPSHIRE YOUNG REPUBLICANS PRAISING THE IN AND MUST DECISION ON FRIDAY ALONG WITH GOVERNOR SUNUNU WHO CALLED THE RULING A MAJOR VICTORY FOR A ELECTION INTEGRITY IN NEW HAMPSHIRE. AFTER A SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE EARLIER THIS WEEK SAID THE LAW WAS TOO CONFUSING AND BURDENSOME ON VOTERS. NEW HAMPSHIRE HAS ARTIE VOTED TWICE ON THESE RULES. THIS LAST-MINUTE CHANGE AMOUNTS TO JUDICIAL ACTIVISM AND I AM GLAD THE SUPREME COURT UNANIMOUSLY STRUCK IT DOWN TODAY. CHERISE: THEY CAN DEMOCRATS DISAGREE. WHEN I TESTIFIED IN COURT AGAINST THIS I SAID IT WOULD NEGATIVELY IMPACT VOTERS. AND IT WOULD DISENFRANCHISE VOTERS. CHERISE: DEMOCRATS SAY THEY HAVE BEEN IN FORMING YOUNG VOTERS ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES ABOUT THE APPROPRIATE PROCEDURES ON ELECTION DAY. >> WE SHOULD BE LOOKING TO OUR POLITICIANS TO SAY THAT WE VALUE YOUR VOICE. CHERISE: THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES ALSO SAID THAT THIS DECISION WAS BASED ON THE TIMING BEFORE THE ELECTION SAYING IT IS SIMPLY TOO CLOSE TO VOTING DAY TO CHANGE THE FOR

Advertisement N.H. Supreme Court restores registration forms, process of 2017 ‘proof-of-domicile’ law SB 3 Unanimous 5-0 ruling overturns lower court injunction, cites potential confusion Share Shares Copy Link Copy

The New Hampshire Supreme Court, in a unanimous ruling late Friday, kept in place through the Nov. 6 election the voter registration forms used by local officials in the past several elections following the enactment of a controversial law tightening voter identification requirements.A lower court on Monday blocked the state from using the forms required by the 2017 law known as Senate Bill 3, ruling that the law – and the forms – were confusing and imposed “unreasonable and discriminatory” burdens on voters. The law, passed by Republican lawmakers and signed by Gov. Chris Sununu, requires voters to show proof of domicile in New Hampshire, or pledge to provide documentation to local officials within 10 to 30 days after an election.But the state’s highest court, responding to an emergency motion filed by the attorney general’s office on Wednesday, ruled that, with less than two weeks to go until Nov. 6, the lower court order would create confusion among local election officials in the lead-up to, and on, Election Day.As a result, it restored the use of the new forms created by SB 3 without ruling on the merits of whether the law is an unconstitutional form of voter suppression, as alleged by the plaintiffs in the underlying case -- the League of Women Voters and the New Hampshire Democratic Party.In a key passage of the three-page ruling, the Supreme Court said:“The court is persuaded that, regardless of the merits, the timing of the preliminary injunction, entered by the trial court a mere two weeks before the Nov. 6 election, creates both a substantial risk of confusion and disruption of the orderly conduct of the election, and the prospect that similarly situated voters may be subjected to differing voter registration and voting procedures in the same election cycle.”View the ruling here.Gov. Chris Sununu called the ruling "a major victory for election integrity in New Hampshire," adding that he is "pleased that the Supreme Court unanimously agreed that the trial court’s ruling was improper and would have thrown the upcoming election into chaos."Voters across the state can now be assured that this election will proceed as planned — with integrity — and that the modest provisions of SB 3 will protect and guarantee every person’s right to vote,” Sununu said.Democratic gubernatorial candidate Molly Kelly posted on Twitter: "New Hampshire should not target college students and silence their voices. As (governor), I will seek to repeal both voter suppression bills signed by Chris Sununu. They are a solution in search of a problem -- and they are wrong for our state."Deputy Secretary of State David Scanlan said the new forms -- despite being described as confusing and unduly burdensome by the parties challenging the law -- were used without incident in the municipal election of 2017, the town elections in the spring and the state primary election in September.Scanlan said, “The practical effect of the Supreme Court’s ruling is that the current procedures under Senate bill 3, which we have been using for more than a year now, will be in place for the Nov. 6 election. And then, after the election, we’re going to have to sort it out.”Scanlan said, “In every one of those elections so far since Senate Bill 3, there was no confusion and no issues at the polling places.”A full trial on lawsuit by the League and the Democratic Party’s will likely be held in 2019. State Democratic Party Chairman Raymond Buckley called the Supreme Court’s ruling “a setback for New Hampshire’s electoral integrity, but it also highlights just how important it is for all eligible Granite State voters to make their voices heard on Election Day. We will have resources in the field to assist any voters confused by this unconstitutional law."On Nov. 6, let’s make sure that regardless of any restrictive legislation, we all turn out and elect legislators who recognize the right to vote as the foundation of our democracy and will fight to protect it,” Buckley said.But state Sen. Regina Birdell, chair of the Senate Election Law Committee and prime sponsor of Senate Bill 3, joined Sununu in praising the ruling.“I applaud the Supreme Court decision today and agree wholeheartedly with their concerns on the timing of a preliminary injunction prohibiting the use of certain election forms less than two weeks prior to an election," Birdsell, a Hampstead Republican, said."These forms have been used the past 16 months in state and municipal elections without any problems. The Supreme Court said it best in their order when they said the timing of the injunction, ‘creates both a substantial risk of confusion and disruption of the orderly conduct of the election.'“This common sense decision will eliminate any unnecessary confusion this coming election day and is a victory for New Hampshire voters.”