Federal Judge Blocks New Hampshire’s Proof-of-Citizenship Voting Law

A federal judge has struck down a major portion of New Hampshire’s voter registration law while several midterm elections are already underway, once again placing the state at the center of the national fight over election integrity and proof-of-citizenship requirements.

The ruling orders New Hampshire to restore the use of sworn affidavits for voters who do not have documentary proof of citizenship immediately available when registering.

The decision is the latest flashpoint in a broader battle over whether states can require stronger verification before allowing individuals to participate in elections, a debate that has intensified as more Republican-led states move to tighten voter registration rules.

On May 28, U.S. District Judge Samantha Elliott ruled that parts of New Hampshire’s 2024 election law were unconstitutional, finding that the measure placed an improper burden on eligible voters trying to register.

The law, signed by former Gov. Chris Sununu in September 2024, removed a longstanding option that allowed prospective voters to sign a qualified voter affidavit under penalty of perjury when they did not have citizenship documents on hand.

Under the law, voters were required to show documents such as a birth certificate, passport, or naturalization papers in order to register.

Voting rights groups and several New Hampshire residents sued after the law took effect, arguing that eligible citizens could be denied access to the ballot if they lacked immediate access to those documents. The cases were later consolidated before the federal court.

Judge Elliott sided with the plaintiffs, concluding that the removal of the affidavit process caused some otherwise eligible voters to be turned away when attempting to register at polling places on Election Day.

In her ruling, Elliott rejected the idea that an affidavit should be treated as a loophole or exemption from citizenship verification. Instead, she said it is itself a method of proving citizenship because false statements can trigger criminal penalties.

“It may be tempting for some to describe the Qualified Voter Affidavit as an exception to the proof-of-citizenship requirement, but it is not,” Elliott wrote.

“A sworn affidavit capable of exposing an affiant to criminal prosecution is a method of proving citizenship and not an exception to that requirement.”

The ruling immediately brings back qualified voter affidavits ahead of New Hampshire’s September 8 primary election.

State officials defended the law as a reasonable election security measure meant to protect the ballot box and maintain public confidence in the process. The New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office argued that requiring documentary proof of citizenship helps reduce opportunities for voter fraud and ensures that elections are limited to eligible citizens.

Officials also pointed to a separate 2025 law signed by Gov. Kelly Ayotte that expanded the tools available to election administrators. That measure allows officials to verify citizenship through state, federal, and interstate databases when a voter does not have physical documentation available.

If those databases confirm the person’s citizenship, the voter can satisfy the registration requirement without producing documents in person.

State officials argued that this system balanced election security with voter access by giving election administrators more ways to verify eligibility while preserving the principle that only citizens should vote.

After the court ruling, New Hampshire signaled that it plans to appeal.

“We are disappointed with the court’s decision and are carefully reviewing the order at this time,” Attorney General spokesperson Michael Garrity said.

“HB 1569 represents a common-sense approach to voter registration and election administration designed to protect the integrity of our elections.”

Supporters of proof-of-citizenship requirements say the issue is simple: American elections should be decided only by American citizens, and states have a legitimate duty to verify eligibility before ballots are cast.

The ruling comes as proof-of-citizenship laws continue to gain momentum across the country.

According to data tracking election laws, 12 states currently require some form of documentary proof of citizenship during voter registration. Eight states require documentary proof in nearly all circumstances, while others use verification systems that require documents only when citizenship cannot be confirmed through existing government databases.

North Dakota remains the only state without a traditional voter registration system.

This year, Florida, Mississippi, South Dakota, and Utah enacted or expanded proof-of-citizenship requirements. Lawmakers in 23 states have also introduced dozens of additional bills dealing with citizenship verification and voter registration procedures.

For conservatives, New Hampshire’s case is part of a larger question facing the country: whether states will be allowed to enact stronger safeguards to protect the vote, or whether courts will continue weakening those efforts in the name of access.

The legal fight is far from over. But for now, New Hampshire must once again accept sworn affidavits from voters who arrive without documentary proof of citizenship, even as the state argues that its law was designed to strengthen confidence in the integrity of its elections.