Source: http://redistricting.lls.edu/states-NH.php
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 18:53:52+00:00

Document:
Congress: On April 11, 2012, the state legislature passed SB 202, which was signed on April 23, and precleared on August 14.
State leg.: On March 7, the state legislature passed SB 201 (state Senate districts), which was signed on March 23. The legislature also passed HB 592 (state House districts) on March 7; the bill was vetoed on March 23, but the veto was overridden on March 28. Both plans were precleared on June 1, 2012; on June 19, the state Supreme Court rejected challenges to the state House plan.
On November 15, 2012, the state filed for bailout from section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, on behalf of the ten jurisdictions covered under section 5. On March 1, 2013, bailout was approved.
New Hampshire's congressional and state legislative lines are drawn by the legislature, as a regular statute, subject to gubernatorial veto. The members of the state House committee responsible for redistricting are listed here.
Census data were delivered to New Hampshire on March 22, 2011.
The state House committee responsible for redistricting scheduled public hearings through the end of October. Past materials are archived here.
New Hampshire must also, like all states, abide by section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. In 2012, ten New Hampshire municipalities (Rindge, Millsfield, Pinkhams Grant, Stewartstown, Stratford, Benton, Antrim, Boscawen, Newington, and Unity) were considered "covered jurisdictions" under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, leaving New Hampshire with an obligation to submit redistricting plans to the Department of Justice or to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, to ensure that the plans did not discriminate against minority communities in those municipalities. In 2013, New Hampshire was bailed out of coverage under section 5.
New Hampshire v. Holder, No. 1:12-cv-01854 (D.D.C.): a suit in federal court seeking bailout from section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
- Complaint (Nov. 15, 2012).
- Proposed consent decree (Dec. 21).
- Approved consent decree (Mar. 1, 2013).
The latest: On March 1, 2013, the DC court approved the proposed consent decree, allowing New Hampshire to bail out from under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
City of Manchester v. Gardner, No. 216-2012-CV-00366 (N.H. Super. Ct., Hillsborough Northern) & No. 2012-0338 (N.H. Sup. Ct.): a challenge in state court to the state House districts, on grounds that the plan improperly allocates representatives to towns under the state constitution.
- Petition (Apr. 23, 2012).
- Motion to dismiss (May 1).
- Request for interlocutory transfer (May 11).
- Acceptance of transfer and briefing order (May 14).
- SoS, intervenor State House (May 17), Manchester (May 21).
- Concord, Gilford, Quandt (May 22).
- Order finding standing (May 22).
- Motion for prelim. inj. to delay filing (May 21), order denying motion (May 22).
- Concord, Gilford, Manchester, Quandt, Wallner, SoS, state House (May 23).
- Amicus brief by Dover/Meredith (May 23).
- Responses by Concord, Manchester, Wallner, SoS, State House (May 30).
- Opinion rejecting challenges (June 19).
- Order on remand, dismissing case (Sept. 17).
The latest: Several cases were consolidated in the state Supreme Court; on June 19, the court rejected the state constitutional challenges to the state legislative plan. The court found that legislative decisions to seek a population deviation of less than 10% rationally justified dividing municipalities, and that the record did not demonstrate other unjustified failures to keep municipalities whole.
City of Concord v. Gardner, No. 217-2012-cv-00273 (N.H. Super. Ct., Merrimack): a challenge in state court to the state House districts, on grounds that the plan improperly allocates representatives to towns under the state constitution.
- Petition (Apr. 24, 2012).
The latest: The petition for relief was filed on April 24. The case has been consolidated with City of Manchester v. Gardner, above.
Wallner v. Gardner, No. 216-2012-CV-00380 (N.H. Super. Ct., Hillsborough Northern): a challenge in state court to the state House districts, on grounds that the plan improperly allocates representatives to towns under the state constitution.
- Petition (Apr. 25, 2012).
The latest: The petition for relief was filed on April 25. The case has been consolidated with City of Manchester v. Gardner, above.
Town of Gilford v. Gardner, No. 211-2012-cv-00139 (N.H. Super. Ct., Belknap): a challenge in state court to the state House districts, on grounds that the plan improperly allocates representatives to towns under the state constitution.
- Petition (Apr. 30, 2012).
The latest: The petition for relief was apparently filed on April 30. The case has been consolidated with City of Manchester v. Gardner, above.
Quandt v. Gardner, No. 216-2012-CV-00412 (N.H. Super. Ct., Hillsborough Northern): a challenge in state court to the state House districts, on grounds that the plan improperly allocates representatives to towns under the state constitution.
- Motion for preliminary injunction (Apr. 30).
In the 2000 redistricting cycle, the New Hampshire legislature passed a congressional plan that was signed on April 8, 2002, and precleared on June 10, 2002.
The legislature redrew some of the state Senate lines in a plan signed on May 28, 2004, and some of the state Representative lines in a plan signed on April 5, 2004. Neither modification affected the towns covered under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, and so neither modification was sent for preclearance.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.