A federal court judge is ordering the New Hampshire Secretary of State to share large portions of a confidential voter database with a group of plaintiffs who argued they need access to the records to prove a new state voting law is unconstitutional.
The database at issue is an expansive file, maintained by the state, that contains the names, addresses, voting history and a cache of other information about people who have cast ballots in New Hampshire — essentially, everything except who people actually voted for.
Gaining access to the database — albeit under a strict set of rules intended to maintain security — is a victory for the ACLU of New Hampshire, which is representing a coalition of progressive-leaning groups who filed a lawsuit last summer to block the implementation of House Bill 1569, which former Gov. Chris Sununu signed into law. The measure makes big changes to how people register to vote in New Hampshire, including mandating that all first-time voters bring proof of their U.S. citizenship in the form of a birth certificate, passport or naturalization papers to the polls with them.
Republicans argued the changes were needed to ensure only citizens were participating in elections, even though there is no evidence of non-Americans taking part in elections in large numbers, and it is already illegal for non-citizens to vote. But the GOP said there was no way to enforce those provisions under the state’s old system, which permitted people to sign documents attesting to their qualifications even if they didn’t have documents with them when they registered.
The plaintiffs, who include the League of Women Voters and the Coalition for Open Democracy, alleged the new rules would lead to waves of otherwise qualified voters being blocked from casting ballots simply because they lacked certain documents. To prove their argument, the ACLU filed a request for a copy of the state’s voter database.
“The production of the database is essential to aiding plaintiffs in demonstrating that HB 1569 unconstitutionally burdens the fundamental right to vote under the United States Constitution,” the ACLU argued.
Of key interest for the ACLU are records about how people registered to vote in past elections, including if they showed proof of citizenship, or if they signed sworn affidavits attesting to their qualifications. Access to the database would give plaintiffs data on how many people may be affected by the new law.
The request to produce the statewide voter registration system, or SVRS, became the subject of numerous motions and hearings this spring in federal court.
The New Hampshire Attorney General’s office argued that the voter database is explicitly exempt from release under state law, including as part of civil lawsuits, and that any sharing of the files “unnecessarily jeopardizes system integrity.”
Secretary of State David Scanlan, in an affidavit, told the judge that any disclosure of voter data could impact people’s views on the security of voting.
“I make all practical efforts to keep the SVRS cybersecure and to protect the voter’s data in part to ensure that disclosure does not deter voting,” he said.
But on May 20, Judge Samantha Elliott ordered the Secretary of State’s office to share a copy of the statewide voter database, rejecting arguments that doing so was a security risk. Elliott pointed to a previous case in New Hampshire where an older version of the statewide database was shared with the ACLU, without apparent incident.
“The defendants do not contend that there have been any cybersecurity or other threats to the SVRS associated with their disclosure of the database in that prior case,” Elliott wrote.
She also noted that federal court discovery rules preempt any state laws regarding confidentiality.
Some information about voters, including their address and party affiliation, is routinely sold by the state to political parties and other groups. Basic information about someone’s registration status is available for public view inside of every town and city hall in the state.
But elections officials argued the statewide database as a whole is highly confidential. Following the ruling, the Secretary of State’s office filed an appeal with the First Circuit Court in Boston. The secretary’s office declined to answer questions for this story, and the attorney general said it couldn’t comment on pending litigation.
The two sides did draw up a set of rules for what portions of the database will be shared, limiting potentially sensitive information. For example, voter Social Security numbers, as well as records pertaining to people who register confidentially because of domestic violence or stalking fears, will not be copied. The database will also be transferred to a computer that is not connected to the internet, Wi-Fi or Bluetooth, and must be destroyed or returned 15 days following the conclusion of the case, which is scheduled for trial in February 2026.
The ACLU is expected to have expert witnesses review the database, who are likely to then testify about the projected impact the new legislation will have on prospective voters.
In town elections earlier this year, there were reports of voters being turned away because they failed to bring a birth certificate or passport to the polls when attempting to register, but it isn’t clear how many people may have been unable to vote.
