Title: Opinion of the Justices (Domicile for Voting Purposes)

State: new-hampshire

Issuer: New Hampshire Supreme Court

Document:

NOTICE: This opinion ig subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as
well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports.
Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme Court of New
Hampshire, One Charles Doe Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03301, of any
editorial errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion goes
to press. Errors may be reported by E-mail at the following addres
reporter@courts.state.nh.us. Opinions are available on the Internet by 9:00
a.m, on the morning of their release. The direct address of the court's home
page is: http://www. courts.state.nh.us/supreme,

 

‘THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Request of the House

No. 2015-171

OPINION OF THE JUSTICES
(Domicile for Voting Purposes)

 

Submitted: March 30, 2015
Opinion Issued: April 9, 2015

(On March 18, 2015, the clerk of the New Hampshire House of
Representatives (House) notified the chief justice and the associate justices of
the supreme court that, on March 11, 2015, the House had adopted a request
for an opinion of the justices regarding House Bill (HB) 112, an act relative to
domicile for voting purposes. The House has requested that the justices give
their opinion upon the following questions of law:

“1) Does HB 112 violate Part [, Article 11 of the New Hampshire State
Constitution?

2) Does HB 112 violate any other provisions of the United States or the
New Hampshire Constitution?”

To the Honorable House:
‘The following response is respectfully returned:
HB 112 proposes to amend RSA 654:1 (Supp. 2014) by inserting a new

paragraph, which would provide: “A person who declares an address in a New
Hampshire town or ward as his or her domicile for voting purposes shalll be
deemed to have established his or her residence for motor vehicle law purposes
at that address.”

You have asked that the undersigned justices of the supreme court
render an advisory opinion as to HB 12's constitutional validity. See N.H.
CONST. pt. II, art. 74. Part Il, Article 74 requires justices of the supreme court
to render advisory opinions “upon important questions of law and upon solemn
occasions” when asked to do so by the legislature or the Governor and Council.

Opinion of the Justices (Appointment of Chief Justice), 150 N.H. 355, 356

(2003) (quotation omitted); see N.H. CONST. pt. Il, art. 74,

You have posed two questions about the validity of HB 112. Your first
question asks whether HB 112 would violate Part I, Article 11 of the New
Hampshire Constitution. Your second question asks whether HB 112 violates
any other provision of the United States or the New Hampshire Constitutions.
Historically, we have declined to answer general inquiries on constitutional
infirmity and, in keeping with that practice, we respectfully decline to answer
the second question. See Opinion of the Justices (Requiring Att'y Gen, to Join

Lawsuit), 162 N.H. 160, 164 (201)

‘With regard to your first question, for the reasons that follow, “after
carefully considering our constitutional duties and based upon long-
established prior decisions,” we respectfully ask to be excused from answering
your first question at this time, Opinion of the Justices (Appointment of Chief
Justice), 150 N.H. at 357.

Part Il, Article 74 of the State Constitution “empowers the justices of the
supreme court to render advisory opinions, outside the context of concrete,
fully-developed factual situations and without the benefit of adversary legal
presentations, only in carefully circumscribed situations.” Duncan v. State,
166 N.H. 630, 640 (2014) (quotation omitted). “Part Il, Article 74 does not
authorize this court to render advisory opinions to private individuals.” Id.
“Nor does it empower the court to issue advisory opinions . . . regarding
existing legislation.” d. at 640-41 (quotation omitted). “That authority extends
only to proposed legislation.” Id. at 641. Further, when we issue such
opinions, “we act not as a court, but as individual constitutional advisors to
the legislative or executive branches.” Opinion of the Justices (Appointment of
Chief Justice), 150 N.H. at 356. Because an opinion of the justices is an
advisory opinion issued to a branch of the legislature, Governor, or Executive
Council, and is not an opinion of the court in a litigated case, an opinion of the
justices “does not constitute binding precedent.” State v, Ploof, 162 N.H. 609,
625 (2011). Moreover, the constitutional duty of the justices of the supreme
court to give advisory opinions does not include answering legal questions that
require resolving questions of fact. Opinion of the Justices (School Financing),

142 N.H. 892, 897 (1998).

 

  

 
Your first question asks whether HB 112 violates PartI, Article 11 of the
‘New Hampshire Constitution, which provides, in pertinent part: “All elections
are to be free, and every inhabitant of the state of 18 years of age and upwards
shall have an equal right to vote in any election.” The court has previously
held that the equal right to vote, as set forth in Part I, Article 11, is,
fundamental. Akins v. Sec'y of State, 154 N.H. 67, 71 (2006).

Determining whether HB 112 unconstitutionally impinges upon a
complaining party's equal right to vote requires weighing “the character and
magnitude of the asserted injury to the rights that (a complaining party] seeks
to vindicate against the precise interests put forward by the State as
justifications for the burden imposed by its rule, taking into consideration the
‘extent to which those interests make it necessary to burden the [complaining
party's] rights.” 1d. at 72 (quotation and ellipsis omitted); see Burdick v.
‘Takashi, 504 U.S. 428, 434 (1992).

Under this analytical framework, “the rigorousness of our inquiry into
the propriety of [an] .. . election law depends upon the extent to which a
challenged regulation burdens” a complaining party's equal right to vote.
Burdick, 504 U.S. at 434. When an election law imposes only “reasonable,
nondiscriminatory restrictions” upon a complaining party's equal right to vote,
then “the State's important regulatory interests are generally sufficient to
justify” those restrictions. Akins, 154 N.H. at 72 (quotations omitted); see
Burdick, 504 U.S. at 434. By contrast, when the election law at issue subjects

‘complaining party’s equal right to vote to “severe” restrictions, the law must
withstand strict scrutiny to be constitutional. Akins, 154 NH. at 72 (quotation,
omitted); see Burdick, 504 U.S. at 434. To withstand strict scrutiny, the law
must “be justified by a compelling governmental interest and must be
necessary to the accomplishment of its legitimate purpose.” Akins, 154 N.H. at
73 (quotation omitted). ‘This analysis is inherently fact-specific. See Cruz v.
Melicio, 204 F.3d 14, 22 (Ist Cir. 2000).

 

 

 

 

 

Currently, there is pending before the court a litigated case, with a
factual record developed over two years, that raises legal issues that are
imilar, if not identical, to those implicated by your first question. See
Annemarie Guare & a. v, State of New Hampshire, No. 2014-0558 (N.H. filed
Aug. 27, 2014). The notice of appeal in Guare was filed on August 27, 2014,
the case is fully briefed, and oral argument is scheduled to take place on April
22, 2016.

To answer your first question now would place us in the position of
giving advice on issues without a developed factual record and in advance of a
decision on a matter currently before the court that involves similar issues.
‘See Opinion of the Justices (Appointment of Chief Justice), 150 N.H. at 357.
Moreover, as previously explained, an advisory opinion on your first question
‘would not constitute a decision of the court, would not establish precedent,

3
and, thus, would not be binding on the court when deciding Guare. See Ploof,
162'N.H. at 625.

For these reasons, we believe that “orderly procedure” requires that we
respectfully ask to be excused from answering your first question at this time.
Opinion of the Justices, 104 N.H. 342, 344 (1962). Once the Guare opinion is
issued, the court will ask the House whether it wishes to proceed with this
request. In the event that|it wishes: ill address the request at
that time.

   

Charles G. Douglas, Ill, of Concord, filed a memorandum on behalf of the
New Hampshire House of Representatives in support of negative answers to the
questions presented.

‘Shaheen & Gordon, P.A., of Concord (William E, Christie on the
memorandum), and American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire, of
Concord (Gilles R. Bissonnette on the memorandum), filed a memorandum on
behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire, the League of
Women Voters of New Hampshire, and the Fair Blections Legal Network in
support of affirmative answers to the questions presented.