Casey v. NH Sec'y of State
| Decision Date | 27 November 2019 |
| Docket Number | Civil No. 19-cv-149-JL |
| Citation | 2019 DNH 199 |
| Parties | Caroline Casey, et al. v. NH Secretary of State, et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Hampshire |
In this voting rights case, two young New Hampshire voters and the New Hampshire Democratic Party challenge recent changes to New Hampshire's statutory definitions of "resident" and "residence." They allege that the impact of these changes remains unclear. But they allege that the changes were intended to burden the right to vote, by indirectly making voter registration an effective declaration of residency that triggers obligations and fees for drivers and vehicle owners under New Hampshire's Motor Vehicle Code. The plaintiffs allege that if the changes have this intended effect, the resulting statutory scheme violates the First, Fourteenth, Twenty-Fourth, and Twenty-Sixth Amendments. The plaintiffs argue that the statutory changes did not achieve the intended effect. But they allege that the unresolved confusion over the impact of the changes itself burdens the right to vote, violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
The plaintiffs' constitutional claims are intertwined with several questions of New Hampshire law upon which this court has found no controlling precedent. Resolution of these questions may be determinative. Pursuant to New Hampshire Supreme Court Rule 34, this court thus certifies the following questions to the New Hampshire Supreme Court:
The court acknowledges that the New Hampshire Supreme Court is familiar with much of the background underlying this case. See Opinion of the Justices, 171 N.H. 128 (2018). What follows is a summary of both the facts and relevant legal context of this federal civil rights litigation.
This case involves three areas of New Hampshire law: elections statutes, statutory construction provisions, and motor vehicle statutes. The plaintiffs' civil rights action challenges recent changes to N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 21:6 and 21:6-a, which altered statutory definitions of "resident" and "residence." They claim that these changes, or confusion resulting from the changes, burden the right to vote and violate the First, Fourteenth, Twenty-Fourth, and Twenty-Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. 2018 House Bill 1264 implemented these changes,and they became law on July 1, 2019. For simplicity and consistency with the parties' papers, the court will refer to the changes collectively as HB 1264.
New Hampshire election law provides that:
Every inhabitant of the state, having a single established domicile for voting purposes, being a citizen of the United States, of the age provided for in Article 11 of Part First of the Constitution of New Hampshire, shall have a right at any meeting or election, to vote in the town, ward, or unincorporated place in which he or she is domiciled. An inhabitant's domicile for voting purposes is that one place where a person, more than any other place, has established a physical presence and manifests an intent to maintain a single continuous presence for domestic, social, and civil purposes relevant to participating in democratic self-government. A person has the right to change domicile at any time, however a mere intention to change domicile in the future does not, of itself, terminate an established domicile before the person actually moves.
N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 654:1, I.
Voting is thus conditioned on domicile. The statute also specifically addresses students: "A student of any institution of learning may lawfully claim domicile for voting purposes in the New Hampshire town or city in which he or she lives while attending such institution of learning if such student's claim of domicile otherwise meets the requirements of RSA 654:1, I." N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 654:1, I-a1. The voter statute does not refer to "resident" or "residence".
Chapter 21 of Title I of the New Hampshire Code ("Statutory Construction") provides rules of statutory interpretation and definitions applicable under the Code. These include the definitions of "resident" and "residence" altered by HB 1264. Prior to the recent changes, Section 21:6 provided:
A resident or inhabitant or both of this state and of any city, town or other political subdivision of this state shall be a person who is domiciled or has a place of abode or both in this state and in any city, town or other political subdivision of this state, and who has, through all of his actions, demonstrated a current intent to designate that place of abode as his principal place of physical presence for the indefinite future to the exclusion of all others.
N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 21:6 (2018) (amended 2019) (emphasis added). And Section 21:6-a similarly provided that:
Residence or residency shall mean a person's place of abode or domicile. The place of abode or domicile is that designated by a person as his principal place of physical presence for the indefinite future to the exclusion of all others. Such residence or residency shall not be interrupted or lost by a temporary absence from it, if there is an intent to return to such residence or residency as the principal place of physical presence.
N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 21:6-a (2018) (amended 2019) (emphasis added). Prior to the recent changes implemented by HB 1264, individuals were not deemed "residents" unless they intended to remain in New Hampshire "for the indefinite future."
Finally, this case implicates certain motor vehicle statutes because these provisions impose obligations on New Hampshire "residents." Section 259:88 addresses "resident for motor vehicle purposes" and provides that "'[r]esident' shall mean a resident of the state as defined in RSA 21:6, except that no person shall be deemed to be a resident who claims residence in any other state for any purpose." N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 259:88. A motor vehicle owner or driver that establishes bona fide residency in New Hampshire takes on certain legal obligations.
[W]hen a nonresident has established a bona fide residency in this state, said resident shall have a maximum of 60 days from the date of his or her residency in which to register his or her vehicle or vehicles in New Hampshire.
N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 261:45.
[A]ny nonresident driver of a motor vehicle who holds a valid driver's license in another jurisdiction, upon the establishment of a bona fide residency in this state, shall have a maximum of 60 days from the date his residency was established to obtain a driver's license issued by the state of New Hampshire.
HB 1264 amended the definition of "resident" and "residence" in sections 21:6 and 21:6-a to remove the requirement that a resident intend to remain "for the indefinite future." The bill was introduced in the New Hampshire House of Representatives in November 2017, and by May 2018 was passed by both the House and New Hampshire Senate.1 The plaintiffs allege that the bill was a voting measure, primarily intended to discourage college students from voting in New Hampshire elections.2 The aim of the bill, they allege, was to make "residency" equivalent to "domicile," so that registering to vote would effectively declare residency and trigger exposure to motor vehicle obligations and fees.3 The plaintiffs allege that the bill intended to require college students to incur the cost and burden of obtaining New Hampshire drivers licenses and registering their cars (if they own cars) in New Hampshire if they wish to both vote in New Hampshire and drive or own vehicles in the state.4 Before HB 1264's changes, many such students could be domiciled in New Hampshire (and vote) under the election statutes without being residents under motor vehicle law, because they lacked the then-statutorily-required intent to remain for the indefinite future.
The plaintiffs point to various aspects of the legislative record to support their account of HB 1264. They allege that the bill was considered by the election law committees of the legislature, and that the Division of Motor Vehicles did not assess the bill.5 Instead, the plaintiffsallege, the Secretary of State's office advocated for and testified about the bill.6 They also cite alleged statements by legislators presenting the bill as a voting measure designed to discourage certain groups from voting or at least impose costs on them.7 HB 1264 also fits, according to the plaintiffs, within a pattern of recent legislative efforts to discourage voting by college students.8
After HB 1264 passed the legislature, the Governor and Executive Council requested that the Justices of the New Hampshire Supreme Court opine on the constitutionality of the bill under the New Hampshire...
To continue reading
Request your trial