Qualified Voter Affidavit and Challenged Voter Affidavit for Voter Registration and Voting Access Are Restored; State Is Permanently Barred from Implementing and Enforcing Legislation that Eliminated Them

To register to vote in New Hampshire, a person must prove that they are a United States citizen. At issue in this case was the fate of two kinds of affidavits (sworn statements) that a voter could use in connection with that requirement – the Qualified Voter Affidavit and the Challenged Voter Affidavit.

Qualified Voter Affidavit: A person is qualified to vote in New Hampshire if they are a resident of the State, a U.S. citizen, 18 years or older on the date of the election, and domiciled in the jurisdiction in which they intend to vote. Prior to November 11, 2024, RSA 654:12 provided that an individual who sought to register to vote could prove their citizenship by either providing documentary proof of citizenship (birth certificate, passport, naturalization papers, etc.) or completing a Qualified Voter Affidavit in which the applicant swore “under the penalties for voting fraud” that they were qualified to vote.

Challenged Voter Affidavit: RSA 659:27 permits any registered voter of the same town or ward, any election official, any challenger appointed in writing by a political party, or the Attorney General to challenge the right of any voter to cast a ballot in an election. To initiate a challenge, the challenger must complete a form, sign it, and swear to it under oath and the penalties of perjury. At this point, the supervisors of the checklist or the moderator (depending on the grounds for the challenge) must decide whether it is “more likely than not that the challenge is well grounded.” Prior to November 11, 2024, if the challenge was deemed well grounded, RSA 659:27 permitted the voter to vote if they completed a Challenged Voter Affidavit swearing or attesting to their eligibility to vote under penalties of voter fraud.

In 2024, the NH Legislature passed and the Governor signed House Bill 1569, which became effective on November 11, 2024. It repealed the provisions allowing the use of a Qualified Voter Affidavit when registering to vote and the use of a Challenged Voter Affidavit when a voter’s right to vote was successfully challenged. As a result, people were unable to register to vote at all if they did not produce documentary proof of citizenship and

registered voters whose qualifications were challenged were not able to defend themselves and vote by using a Challenged Voter Affidavit.

The second legislative action at issue in this case was House Bill 464, signed into law on August 1, 2025. HB 464 amended or modified some of the provisions of HB 1569, apparently for the purpose of mitigating some of the effects of the elimination of the affidavits. It permitted clerks to accept as proof of citizenship for voter registration proof that the applicant was or is currently registered to vote in a different location in New Hampshire, and provided that election officials could access the Statewide Voter Registration System (“SVRS”) to confirm an applicant’s citizenship if they did not have documentation with them.

The plaintiffs in this case (several voting rights organizations active in New Hampshire and several individuals) challenged both HB 1569 and HB 464 in the federal district court for the District of New Hampshire. They brought suit against the NH Secretary of State under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983, claiming that (1) the elimination of the Qualified Voter affidavit as a method to establish citizenship is an unjustifiable burden on the right to vote in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and (2) the elimination of the Challenged Voter Affidavit violates voters’ rights to procedural due process.

In its 98-page order, the Court agreed with the Plaintiffs and permanently barred the State from implementing or enforcing either HB 1569 or HB 464.

“The right to vote is a fundamental political right,…preservative of all rights” said the Court. The Constitution grants to the states a broad power to regulate voting, which invariably imposes some burden on individual voters. However, the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit states from placing burdens on the right to vote that are not reasonably justified by the states’ important regulatory interests. A court reviewing voting regulations must “weigh the character and magnitude of the asserted injury to the voters’ rights against the precise interests put forward by the State as justifications for the burden imposed.” Critically, the court is required to consider the burden of the challenged regulation in the context of that state’s election laws as a whole to see what the real impact of that regulation will be. (As explained at length in the order, even with the affidavits, New Hampshire already had one of the strictest voting regimes in the country.) The heavier the burden on voters’ rights, the closer the scrutiny will be of the State’s justification for imposing that burden. Restrictions that impose a severe burden are subject to strict scrutiny and survive only if they are narrowly drawn to advance a state interest of compelling importance.

The following is a summary of the key conclusions reached by the Court:

1. Elimination of Affidavits Significantly Burdened Voters' Rights The removal of the Qualified Voter Affidavit (QVA) and Challenged Voter Affidavit (CVA) by HB 1569 made it much harder for eligible New Hampshire voters to register and vote, especially on election day. The QVA was the only method available for many voters to prove citizenship if they lacked documentary proof. For example, between April and November 2024, over 14,700 voters used QVAs to prove citizenship, with young voters (ages 17–24) relying on them at even higher rates.

2. The State's Justifications Were Not Supported by Evidence The state argued that eliminating the affidavits was necessary to prevent voter fraud and ensure election integrity. However, the court found that wrongful voting, especially by noncitizens, was extremely rare in New Hampshire—only 47 instances in 26 years, with just 8 involving noncitizens. There was no evidence that the affidavits contributed to fraud, and even state officials (including the prime sponsor of HB 1569 in the Legislature) admitted that voter fraud was not a significant issue.

3. Disproportionate Impact on Young Voters and Married Women The elimination of the QVA and CVA disproportionately affected young voters (who are more likely to be first-time registrants and less likely to have documentary proof on hand) and married women (whose names may not match their citizenship documents due to marriage or divorce). For example, more than 80% of women in opposite-sex marriages change their names, and the lack of access to out-of-state marriage or divorce records further complicated registration for these voters.

4. Alternative Procedures Did Not Adequately Mitigate the Burden Subsequent legislation (HB 464) attempted to provide alternative ways to prove citizenship, such as using prior registration or state records. However, these alternatives were limited in scope and effectiveness. For instance, over 60% of New Hampshire residents were born out of state, making state vital records searches unhelpful for many. Technical and logistical barriers (like lack of internet at polling places and limited staff access to the voter registration system) further hindered these alternatives.

Ultimately, the court found HB 1569’s elimination of affidavits to prove citizenship and voter challenge procedures unconstitutional, burdening voters’ rights without sufficient justification. It highlighted minimal voter fraud, significant access barriers, and procedural due process violations. The law’s burdens on young voters, women, and those lacking documentation outweigh state interests; injunctions and declarations were issued to restore protections. The enactment of HB 464 was insufficient to mitigate these burdens.

READ MORE IN COURT DECISION ON PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION!