Federal Court Strikes Down New Hampshire Voter Law Requiring Documentary Proof of Citizenship

On May 28, 2026, a federal judge struck down key provisions of a New Hampshire law that required prospective voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship in order to register. U.S. District Court Judge Samantha Elliott ruled that the state cannot eliminate the use of sworn affidavits—a long-standing fallback method that allowed voters without immediate access to a birth certificate or passport to attest to their citizenship under penalty of perjury. The ruling reinstates the affidavit option ahead of the state's September primary and the November midterm elections.[3][5]

The frozen statute, known as House Bill 1569, was signed into law by former Governor Chris Sununu in September 2024. It mandated that anyone registering to vote for the first time in New Hampshire produce physical evidence of U.S. citizenship, explicitly banning the use of the state's Qualified Voter Affidavit. The law also removed a separate affidavit option previously available to voters whose eligibility was challenged on Election Day.[3][5]

Supporters of the legislation, including the New Hampshire Attorney General's office, argued that closing the affidavit loophole was a necessary, common-sense measure to guarantee election integrity. The state contended that requiring hard documentation ensures that only eligible citizens cast ballots and boosts public confidence in the electoral process. Proponents also pointed to polling indicating that a majority of Granite Staters support requiring physical evidence of citizenship to register.[4][5]

A coalition of voting rights organizations, including the ACLU of New Hampshire, the League of Women Voters, and the New Hampshire Youth Movement, immediately challenged the law in federal court. The plaintiffs argued that obtaining a passport or birth certificate can be costly and time-consuming, effectively creating an unconstitutional barrier to the ballot box. During a nine-day bench trial, they presented evidence that the elimination of the affidavit had already disenfranchised voters.[1][3][6]

The real-world impact of HB 1569 became apparent shortly after its implementation. In low-turnout 2025 municipal elections, hundreds of eligible Granite Staters were reportedly turned away at the polls because they lacked the required paperwork on hand. Voting rights advocates highlighted cases of long-time residents, including an 89-year-old former ward clerk who had voted in the state for decades, being denied the ability to cast a ballot.[2][6]

In her ruling, Judge Elliott found that the burden placed on voters significantly outweighed the state's interest in preventing fraud. She noted that a sworn affidavit exposing the signer to criminal prosecution is a valid method of proving citizenship, not merely an exception to the rule. Furthermore, testimony from state election officials revealed that noncitizen voting in New Hampshire is exceedingly rare, with only one prosecution for the offense occurring over the past 26 years.[3][5]

Following the May decision, the New Hampshire Attorney General's office appealed to the First Circuit Court of Appeals and requested that the ruling be paused. The state argued that a new online database available to election officials mitigated any burden on voters. However, in late July 2026, the federal court refused to stay the injunction, blasting state officials for failing to track the full effect of the new law on voter turnout and ensuring the block remains in place while the appeal proceeds.[2][4][5]

The legal battle in New Hampshire mirrors a larger national conflict over ballot access. Republican lawmakers across the country have pushed for strict documentary proof of citizenship requirements, framing them as vital safeguards, while voting rights advocates argue they disproportionately affect young and low-income voters. With the affidavit option restored, New Hampshire election officials have been directed to accept sworn statements, leaving the First Circuit to ultimately decide the fate of HB 1569.[4][6]