Federal Judge Strikes Down New Hampshire Proof-Of-Citizenship Voter Law
Federal Judge Samantha Elliott ordered New Hampshire on Friday, May 29, 2026, to loosen its proof-of-citizenship voter registration rules.[1]
Elliott described her ruling as narrow and said she was not deciding whether proof-of-citizenship requirements are constitutional in general.[2] Her opinion said a 2024 change that eliminated sworn affidavits removed "the only method of proof available to a significant number of New Hampshire voters." PBS During town elections in fall 2025 some voters struggled to obtain passports, birth certificates or other documents after the law took effect, the ruling noted.[2] The New Hampshire attorney general said the state will appeal and called the requirements a "common-sense approach" to election integrity, while plaintiffs called the law one of the most restrictive in the nation.[2]
In 2024 New Hampshire changed its voter-registration rules to remove sworn affidavits as a proof-of-citizenship option.[2] Other states including Arizona, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming already have proof-of-citizenship laws, and Florida passed a similar law set to take effect next year, making New Hampshire an early federal test case.[2]
Show source details & analysis (2 sources)
📌 Key Facts
- On Friday, May 29, 2026, federal Judge Samantha Elliott ruled that New Hampshire must loosen its proof-of-citizenship voter registration rules (Judge Samantha Elliott).
- Elliott framed her decision as a narrower ruling on New Hampshire law and expressly said she was not deciding whether proof-of-citizenship requirements are constitutional in general (Judge Samantha Elliott).
- Her opinion says the 2024 change eliminating sworn affidavits removed “the only method of proof available to a significant number of New Hampshire voters,” highlighting the law’s practical impact (the 2024 change eliminating sworn affidavits).
- The article reports that during town elections in fall 2025 some voters struggled to obtain passports, birth certificates or other documents after the law took effect, illustrating real‑world burdens (town elections in fall 2025).
- The coverage notes that at least Arizona, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming already have proof‑of‑citizenship laws in effect and that Florida passed a similar law set to take effect next year, making New Hampshire an early federal test case (Arizona, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming).
- The New Hampshire Attorney General's office said it will appeal, calling the requirements a “common‑sense approach” to election integrity, while plaintiffs continue to call the law one of the most restrictive in the nation (New Hampshire Attorney General's office).
📰 Source Timeline (2)
Follow how coverage of this story developed over time
- The PBS/AP piece emphasizes that Judge Samantha Elliott framed her decision as a narrower ruling on New Hampshire law and expressly stated she was not deciding whether proof-of-citizenship requirements are constitutional in general.
- Elliott's opinion characterizes the 2024 change eliminating sworn affidavits as removing "the only method of proof available to a significant number of New Hampshire voters," sharpening the focus on practical impact.
- The article notes that during town elections in fall 2025, some voters concretely struggled to obtain passports, birth certificates or other documents after the law took effect, illustrating real-world burdens.
- It cites comparative data that at least Arizona, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming already have proof-of-citizenship laws in effect and that Florida passed a similar law to take effect next year, situating New Hampshire as an early federal test case.
- The New Hampshire Attorney General's office publicly reiterated it will appeal, calling the requirements a "common-sense approach" to election integrity, and plaintiffs again label the law one of the most restrictive in the nation.