This page is an unofficial mirror and is not legal advice. Verify the document against the official source before relying on it.
2008-246, LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE v. SECRETARY OF STATE
appeals a decision of the Superior Court (Conboy, J.) challenging the remedy GALWAY, J. The New Hampshire Republican State Committee (NHRSC)
New Hampshire Democratic Party. Starr & Peters, of Manchester (Kathleen Sullivan on the brief), for intervenor Finis E. Williams, III, of Concord, on the brief and orally, and Wadleigh,
Republican State Committee. the brief, and Richard Lehmann orally), for intervenor New Hampshire Douglas, Leonard & Garvey, P.C., of Concord (Charles G. Douglas, III on
Kelly A. Ayotte, attorney general, for the defendant, filed no brief.
no brief. to press. Errors may be reported by E-mail at the following address: New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union, of Concord, for the plaintiff, filed
Opinion Issued: December 19, 2008 Argued: November 19, 2008
SECRETARY OF STATE
page is: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme. v.
LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
editorial errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion goes No. 2008-246 Hampshire, One Charles Doe Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03301, of any Merrimack Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme Court of New ___________________________
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
a.m. on the morning of their release. The direct address of the court's home reporter@courts.state.nh.us. Opinions are available on the Internet by 9:00
well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as funds. The NHRSC appeals from this order. further distributing the lists, but did not require the NHDP to disgorge any 2008, the trial court issued an order preventing the NHDP and NHRSC from
the NHDP to disgorge any funds obtained by selling the lists. On February 28,
particular remedy. The NHRSC argued that it would be appropriate to require lists had already been released, but did not argue for the imposition of any of New Hampshire, acknowledged the difficulty of crafting a remedy since the charge to at least one other group. NHDP sold the lists to various groups, and the NHRSC provided the list without
appropriate remedy. The original parties to the matter, the LPNH and the State
NHRSC and the NHDP obtained the State’s lists pursuant to RSA 654:46. The
hearing was scheduled to address what further relief, if any, was necessary.
2
which the law was designed to protect.” Asmussen v. Comm’r, N.H. Dep’t of standing to sue, we focus on whether the party suffered a legal injury against Aeronautics, 152 N.H. 30, 35 (2005). “In evaluating whether a party has jurisdiction, which may be addressed at any time. Hughes v. N.H. Div. of February 12, 2008, the trial court held a hearing to address the issue of an it brings to this court, a party’s standing is a question of subject matter Although no party disputes the NHRSC’s standing to raise the arguments court denied the injunction and its order was not appealed. Thereafter, the
also was not appealed. Pursuant to the terms of the trial court’s order, a
that “party.” On December 5, 2007, the NHRSC intervened in the matter. On “party,” to furnish certain lists of voting information compiled by the State to August 13, 2007. The NHRSC did not participate in the proceeding. The trial
trial court issued an order finding RSA 654:46 unconstitutional. That order intervened in the matter. intervene and did not participate in the hearing. On November 26, 2007, the address the constitutionality of the statute. The NHRSC did not move to On November 15, 2007, the trial court held a hearing on the merits to
into effect. That statute required the Secretary of State, upon the request of a The trial court held a hearing on the preliminary injunction request on
standing and accordingly dismiss its appeal. distribution of the State’s lists to the NHRSC and the NHDP. The NHDP unconstitutional, as well as preliminary and permanent injunctions preventing Hampshire (LPNH) filed a petition seeking to have RSA 654:46 declared (2008) (defining “party”). On August 9, 2007, the Libertarian Party of New which qualified as parties were the NHRSC and the NHDP. See RSA 652:11
See RSA 654:46, I. At the time, the only entities in the state
The record reveals the following. On July 18, 2007, RSA 654:46 went
New Hampshire Democratic Party (NHDP). We conclude that the NHRSC lacks fashioned by the trial court for alleged violations of RSA 654:46 (2008) by the NHRSC.
party who has chosen not to request it. financial remedy. Accordingly, the relief sought is for the benefit of another Secretary of State. The Secretary of State, however, opted not to pursue a
presuming the NHDP was unjustly enriched, it was not at the expense of the argument in such a way does nothing to demonstrate injury to it. Even NHRSC at times presents this as a case of unjust enrichment, casting the
by the NHDP through the sale of the lists ought to be disgorged and paid to the
and we, therefore, dismiss it.
party on whose behalf it professes to be arguing. to protect, and the remedy it seeks is incompatible with the position of the 3 NHRSC has simply not suffered any harm against which the law was designed not, in any meaningful sense, an injury to the NHRSC. Moreover, while the
BRODERICK, C.J.
, and DALIANIS, DUGGAN and HICKS, JJ., concurred.
Dismissed. review of the remedy it seeks. The NHRSC contends that any funds obtained
Accordingly, we conclude that the NHRSC lacks standing to pursue this appeal sufficient to overturn the trial court’s equitable ruling. Cf. Hughes, 152 N.H. at 35.
unreasonable or untenable to the prejudice of its case. (2007) (defendant lacked standing to assert the rights of another). In short, the advantage potentially gained by the NHDP from selling the lists, however, is Cf. Gill v. Gerrato, 156 N.H. 595, 599 benefit that they received came at our expense.” Any financial or political benefited from this conduct and that benefit is directly to our detriment. Any
Finally, the NHRSC’s lack of a legal harm is thrown into sharp relief by a
not suffered legal harm, we fail to see how it could show any prejudice
Id. As the NHRSC has
trial court’s order is unsustainable must demonstrate that the ruling was for an unsustainable exercise of discretion.” Id. The party asserting that a Wheelock, 157 N.H. 329, 332 (2008). “We, in turn, review an equitable order particular case rests in the sound discretion of the trial court. Foley v. this closed environment with our competitors on the Democratic side and they remedy crafted by the trial court. The propriety of affording equitable relief in a Additionally, the only issue on appeal is the correctness of the equitable
NHRSC contended: “We are an injured party to the extent that we operate in placing it at a disadvantage. During oral argument before this court the because the NHDP made money by selling the lists and it did not, thereby So far as we can discern, the NHRSC argues that it has suffered injury
include the power to issue advisory opinions. Id. at 588. upon the constitutional principle that the judicial power ordinarily does not requirement that a party demonstrate harm to maintain a legal challenge rests Safety, 145 N.H. 578, 587 (2000) (quotations and brackets omitted). The