Court Says Dems Have No Standing to Challenge New Hampshire Voter ID Law – Trump News 2024


Advertisement


OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author’s opinion.


A state court in New Hampshire ruled last week that Democrat-backed lawsuits challenging the state’s voter ID law did not have any standing and threw the case out.

Justice Charles Temple, writing for the Hillsborough Superior Court, ruled that the challenges filed against the law lacked standing because plaintiffs did not produce any evidence to show that their ability to cast a ballot was impeded by the requirement in question, according to The Federalist.

“In their original lawsuit against New Hampshire’s Republican secretary of state and attorney general, several state voters, along with 603 Forward and Open Democracy Action (two leftist organizations), claimed SB 418 violated provisions of the New Hampshire Constitution,” the outlet reported.

Defendants in the case included the Republican National Committee, New Hampshire Republican State Committee, and Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections (RITE) PAC, said the outlet.

The Federalist added:

Advertisement

Signed into law by GOP Gov. Chris Sununu last year, SB 418 altered the process by which voters verify their identity when casting their ballot. Under the law, voters who fail to present an approved form of ID would be instructed to fill out an “affidavit ballot,” at which point he or she must then fill out and submit a series of documents proving he or she is eligible to vote. If a voter does not return a copy of the required information within seven days of the election, that voter’s ballot will not be certified.

In his Wednesday ruling, Temple noted how plaintiffs were unable to document any evidence proving their rights were, “or will be,” violated by the law.

“In sum, it seems abundantly clear to the Court that the ‘rights’ at issue in this litigation are the constitutional rights of New Hampshire’s voters, which the organizational plaintiffs maintain have been (or will be) violated by SB 418,” wrote Temple.

“However, under long-standing case law, the organizational plaintiffs may only challenge the constitutionality of SB 418 based on an invasion of their own rights. … “Because of the things listed above, the plaintiffs have not shown that the defendants are claiming an adversely to a present legal or equitable right that belongs to them,” he said.

The justice also granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the lawsuit, which sought to declare SB 418 unlawful. The leftist groups also sought an injunction against enforcement of the law, The Federalist noted.

“Preferring an election honor system is not a sufficient reason to insert chaos into New Hampshire’s elections. The reason these dark-money-funded activists could not identify any rights affected by SB 418 is because every eligible voter who wants to vote in New Hampshire can vote easily,” RITE President Derek Lyons said in a statement after the ruling.

“Voter ID laws do not harm eligible voters. Instead, they identify those people ineligible to vote, including non-citizens. Every case rejecting activists’ attempts to upend state election law helps restore voters’ confidence in the ballot box,” he added.

Last year, Missouri adopted a photo voter ID measure ahead of the midterm elections after nearly two decades of Republicans pushing for the requirement.

“The new Missouri election law also will open a two-week window for people to cast absentee ballots in person without needing to cite a reason why they can’t vote on Election Day – a provision pushed by Democrats as a compromise for not attempting to block the photo ID requirement,” KMBC reported.

Advertisement

However, in December, the North Carolina Supreme Court struck down that state’s voter ID law, claiming the requirement had a “racially discriminatory purpose” against black voters.

“The provisions enacted… were formulated with an impermissible intent to discriminate against African American voters in violation of the North Carolina Constitution,” Associate Justice Anita Earls wrote in the 89-page ruling, per the Washington Post.

Leave a Comment