This page is an unofficial mirror and is not legal advice. Verify the document against the official source before relying on it.
2015-0171, Opinion of the Justices (Domicile for Voting Purposes)
paragraph, which would provide: "A person who declares an address in a New 2) Does HB 112 violate any other provisions of the United States or the the supreme court that, on March 11, 2015, the House had adopted a request Representatives (House) notified the chief justice and the associate justices of editorial errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion goes HB 112 proposes to amend RSA 654:1 (Supp. 2014) by inserting a new their opinion upon the following question of requested that the justices give for an opinion of the justices regarding House Bill (HB) 112, an act relative to "1) Does HB 112 violate Part I, Article 11 of the New Hampshire State Hampshire, One Charles Doe Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03301, of any Hampshire town or ward as his or her domicile for voting purposes shall be 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 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports.
to press. Errors may be reported by E-mail at the following address: Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme Court of New On March 18, 2015, the clerk of the New Hampshire House of
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
(Domicile for Voting Purposes) Opinion Issued: April 9, 2015 Submitted: March 30, 2015 OPINION OF THE JUSTICES The following response is respectfully returned:
page is: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme.
New Hampshire Constitution?»
To the Honorable House:
Request of the House
Constitution? No. 2015-171 occasions" when asked to do so by the legislature or the Governor and Council. to render advisory opinions "upon important questions of law and upon solemn deemed to have established his or her residence for motor vehicle law purposes existing legislation." Id. at 640-41 (quotation omitted). "That authority extends CONST. pt. II, art. 74. Part II, Article 74 requires justices of the supreme court require resolving questions of fact. Opinion of the Justices (School Financing), court to give advisory opinions does not include answering legal questions that justices "does not constitute binding precedent." State v. Ploof, 162 N.H. 609, Council, and is not an opinion of the court in a litigated case, an opinion of the the legislative or executive branches." Opinion of the Justices (Appointment of Part II, Article 74 of the State Constitution "empowers the justices of the your first question at this time. Opinion of the Justices (Appointment of Chief established prior decisions," we respectfully ask to be excused from answering the second question. See Opinion of the Justices (Requiring Att'y Gen. to Join any other provision of the United States or the New Hampshire Constitutions. Hampshire Constitution. Your second question asks whether HB 112 violates 'infirmity and, in keeping with that practice, we respectfully decline to answer advisory opinion issued to a branch of the legislature, Governor, or Executive You have posed two questions about the validity of HB 112. Your first 625 (2011). Moreover, the constitutional duty of the justices of the supreme opinions, "we act not as a court, but as individual constitutional advisors to presentations, only in carefully circumscribed situations." Duncan v. State, render an advisory opinion as to HB 112's constitutional validity. See N.H. authorize this court to render advisory opinions to private individuals." Id. fully-developed factual situations and without the benefit of adversary legal supreme court to render advisory opinions, outside the context of concrete, Historically, we have declined to answer general inquiries on constitutional 166 N.H. 630, 640 (2014) (quotation omitted). "Part II, Article 74 does not With regard to your first question, for the reasons that follow, "after Opinion of the Justices (Appointment of Chief Justice), 150 N.H. 355, 356 You have asked that the undersigned justices of the supreme court Chief Justice), 150 N.H. at 356. Because an opinion of the justices is an question asks whether HB 112 would violate Part I, Article 11 of the New "Nor does it empower the court to issue advisory opinions ... regarding only to proposed legislation." Id. at 641. Further, when we issue such carefully considering our constitutional duties and based upon long-
(2003) (quotation omitted); see N.H. CONST. pt. II, art. 74.
Lawsuit), 162 N.H. 160, 164 (2011).
142 N.H. 892, 897 (1998). Justice), 150 N.H. at 357.
at that address." necessary to the accomplishment of its legitimate purpose." Akins, 154 N.H. at withstand strict scrutiny to be constitutional. Akins, 154 N.H. at 72 (quotation Burdick, 504 U.S. at 434. By contrast, when the election law at issue subjects nondiscriminatory restrictions" upon a complaining party's equal right to vote, are to be free, and every inhabitant of the state of 18 years of age and upwards giving advice on issues without a developed factual record and in advance of a the case is fully briefed, and oral argument is scheduled to take place on April justifications for the burden imposed by its rule, taking into consideration the magnitude of the asserted injury to the rights that [a complaining party] seeks Your first question asks whether HB 112 violates Part I, Article 11 of the a complaining party's equal right to vote to "severe" restrictions, the law must New Hampshire Constitution, which provides, in pertinent part: "All elections Moreover, as previously explained, an advisory opinion on your first question Aug. 27, 2014). The notice of appeal in Guare was filed on August 27, 2014, omitted); see Burdick, 504 U.S. at 434. To withstand strict scrutiny, the law extent to which those interests make it necessary to burden the [complaining See Opinion of the Justices (Appointment of Chief Justice), 150 N.H. at 357. Annemarie Guare & a. v. State of New Hampshire, No. 2014-0558 (N.H. filed 73 (quotation omitted). This analysis is inherently fact-specific. See Cruz v. Under this analytical framework, "the rigorousness of our inquiry into would not constitute a decision of the court, would not establish precedent, decision on a matter currently before the court that involves similar issues. complaining party's equal right to vote requires weighing "the character and Burdick, 504 U.S. at 434. When an election law imposes only "reasonable, shall have an equal right to vote in any election." The court has previously justify" those restrictions. Akins, 154 N.H. at 72 (quotations omitted); see To answer your first question now would place us in the position of then "the State's important regulatory interests are generally sufficient to Currently, there is pending before the court a litigated case, with a challenged regulation burdens" a complaining party's equal right to vote. the propriety of [an] ... election law depends upon the extent to which a factual record developed over two years, that raises legal issues that are party's] rights." Id. at 72 (quotation and ellipsis omitted); see Burdick V. Determining whether HB 112 unconstitutionally impinges upon a similar, if not identical, to those implicated by your first question. See must "be justified by a compelling governmental interest and must be to vindicate against the precise interests put forward by the State as held that the equal right to vote, as set forth in Part I, Article 11, 1s
fundamental. Akins v. Sec'y of State, 154 N.H. 67, 71 (2006).
Melicio, 204 F.3d 14, 22 (1st Cir. 2000).
Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 434 (1992).
22, 2015. New Hampshire House of Representatives in support of negative answers to the Charles G. Douglas, III, of Concord, filed a memorandum on behalf of the Opinion of the Justices, 104 N.H. 342, 344 (1962). Once the Guare opinion is respectfully ask to be excused from answering your first question at this time. and, thus, would not be binding on the court when deciding Guare. See Ploof, Concord (Gilles R. Bissonnette on the memorandum), filed a memorandum on For these reasons, we believe that "orderly procedure" requires that we behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire, the League of request. In the event that it wishes to do so, we will address the request at issued, the court will ask the House whether it wishes to proceed with this Women Voters of New Hampshire, and the Fair Elections Legal Network in memorandum), and American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire, of
Shaheen & Gordon, P.A., of Concord (William E. Christie on the Stewart Dalians
Douse Arn Conbry support of affirmative answers to the questions presented. Hey s Any
CAROL ANN CONBOY
JAMES P. BASSETT
questions presented.
162 N.H. at 625.
that time.