NH Supreme Court rejects Dover and Rochester's 2020 redistricting complaint
The New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the House district maps created by the Republican-controlled state Legislature in 2020 are not illegal, despite allegations made by the cities of Dover and Rochester and a number of residents from throughout New Hampshire.
In 2022, Dover, Rochester, and 10 residents filed a lawsuit against the State of New Hampshire and Secretary of State David Scanlan alleging that the state's maps violated the New Hampshire Constitution. They argued that the constitution requires Dover Ward 4, Rochester Ward 5, New Ipswich, Wilton, Hooksett, Lee, Barrington, and several other towns to have their own state House districts because their populations are large enough to warrant them. The maps currently in use do not give those wards and towns their own districts. They also alleged the map's population configuration deviates more than 10%, which is a violation of the 14th Amendment's one-person-one-vote requirement. They ask the court to forbid the state from using the maps and to ostensibly fix them. They provided a map they deemed to be more legal.
In 2024, a trial court in Strafford County ruled against Dover and Rochester, agreeing with the state and Scanlan that creating maps where every city, town, or ward with the necessary population had their own districts would be impossible to accomplish. It also ruled previous case law determined that presumptive violations of the one-person-one-vote requirement may be justified by efforts to make districts compact, respect municipal boundaries, preserve the cores of prior districts, and avoid contests between incumbent representatives. Citing a previous court decision, the court declared that 'a legislatively enacted redistricting plan 'is not unconstitutional simply because some 'resourceful mind' has come up with a better one.''
Dover, Rochester, and the rest of the plaintiffs promptly appealed the ruling and the state Supreme Court considered the case. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled that because they did not sufficiently show that the Legislature had 'no rational or legitimate basis' to enact the map, they denied the appeal.
'We are pleased that the New Hampshire Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the state's redistricting plan for the State House of Representatives,' Attorney General John Formella, who represented the state, said in a statement Wednesday. 'Today's decision reaffirms the Court's prior precedent recognizing the Legislature's broad discretion in the area of redistricting and recognizes that the Legislature must balance complex constitutional requirements when determining the most appropriate map. We are delighted that the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's finding that the Legislature acted within its constitutional authority, and I thank our litigation and appeals teams for their excellent work in achieving this important outcome.'
Jennifer Perez, Dover's deputy city attorney wrote in an email to the Bulletin, 'We are disappointed in the result but respect the Court's determination.' Officials from Rochester did not immediately respond to the Bulletin's requests for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
42 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Letters: S.F. mystery benches may annoy city, but they're a lifesaver for some people
Regarding 'Mystery benches are appearing on S.F. sidewalks. The city isn't happy about it' (San Francisco, July 7): I timed how long I could stand in place. It was eight minutes. A minute longer, and I'd feel my feet are carrying a load hoisted by an elephant. Multiple sclerosis has obliterated my physical abilities. Three years ago, I was an athletic young mom coaching my son's kindergarten team. Now I'm a disabled mom, always looking for a place to rest my fatigued legs. It's important for my kids to know that we are still city-loving parents. We will continue exploring this great city of San Francisco. However, it is nearly impossible to find a bench to sit at bus stops (we are avid Muni riders) or in the neighborhoods we visit. Having more benches is helpful to older people and those in the disabled community. Guerrilla benches might be inconvenient to city departments, but let us also continue to make this city accessible and inviting to all. Newsom is MIA The National Guard is camped out in Los Angeles. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is terrorizing and kidnapping hundreds of innocent, hard-working, tax-paying immigrants in cities throughout California. The state budget has a huge deficit. Medicaid cuts from the Great Big and Ugly budget bill could force hospital closures in California. Where is Gov. Gavin Newsom? Galavanting around and campaigning for the Democratic Party's nomination for president in 2028. Come home and take care of business, governor. I'm a Democrat who would never vote for a Republican, but it looks like I may have to support one of Newsom's Democratic opponents if he doesn't get his priorities right. Kerry Gough, Oakland Good riddance Regarding 'Controversial S.F. fountain not part of Embarcadero Plaza renovation plans, officials say' (San Francisco, July 9): I was pleased to hear that the sculpture was not part of the renovation plan for Embarcadero Plaza. Calling it a 'Brutalist fountain' is right on — it's simply brutal to look at. I happen to agree with former Chronicle architect critic Allan Temko, who once described it as 'something deposited by a concrete dog with square intestines.' Time to say goodbye to an eyesore and hello to a fountain-free park. Larry Costello, San Francisco City losing jewel Regarding 'Controversial S.F. fountain not part of Embarcadero Plaza renovation plans, officials say' (San Francisco, July 9): The amazing Vaillancourt Fountain is well worth the cost of restoration to preserve this magical work of art. It is worth much more than the Embarcadero Plaza renovation budget. The more treasures like this that San Francisco loses, the more diminished the city becomes. San Francisco is rapidly losing its heart and soul.
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
14th Amendment was ratified 157 years ago to grant citizenship to Black Americans. MAGA is now reshaping it
'In some ways, the 14th Amendment is the original articulation that Black lives matter,' says Damon Hewitt, president and executive director of Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law. On July 9, 1868, the 14th Amendment was ratified to the U.S. Constitution, granting U.S. citizenship to Black Americans after hundreds of years of enslavement. The crucial amendment would later serve as the legal framework for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed racial discrimination at a time of systematic racial segregation and disenfranchisement. 'In some ways, the 14th Amendment is the original articulation that Black lives matter,' says Damon Hewitt, president and executive director of Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law, referring to the amendment's repeal of the Three-Fifths Compromise, which counted enslaved African Americans as three-fifths of a person. Hewitt told theGrio, 'It is fundamental to this nation holding up to its stated ideals.' Nearly 160 years later, advocates are fretting over how the 14th Amendment is being relitigated, literally and politically, and, as they argue, distorted. In recent years, conservative litigants have used the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause to argue cases of so-called white discrimination, most notably the U.S. Supreme Court's 2023 ruling that prohibits race-based affirmative action in college admissions. The Equal Protection Clause was also used to block former President Joe Biden's debt relief program for Black farmers, filed by a conservative law firm founded by Trump's deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller, on behalf of white farmers. President Trump and administration officials have repeatedly pointed to SCOTUS' affirmative action ruling to suggest that diversity, equity, and inclusion programs are 'illegal,' and as a basis for his executive order banning DEI across the entire federal government. But legal experts have repeatedly dismissed that argument, clarifying that the decision is limited to college admissions and not DEI writ large. Hewitt, who said the affirmative action ruling was a 'horrible decision,' explained to theGrio that the Equal Protection Clause during its conception was about prohibiting 'racial classifications that exclude Black people.' The civil rights attorney said that while he thinks its 'fair' to use the 14th Amendment clause to argue against such racial classifications that also exclude white people and other racial or ethnic groups, average DEI programs do not exclude anyone. 'It's about inclusion,' he asserted. 'What is being done with the Equal Protection Clause now is making equity the enemy of equality,' argued Meeta Anand, senior director of Census & Data Equity at The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. She explained, 'What you're seeing is claims that any efforts to provide a helping hand to those who have been persistently and historically disadvantaged and face systemic barriers to their own advancement, that any efforts to help them overcome these systemic barriers is viewed as suspect and in violation of equality.' Anand told theGrio, 'You need efforts that are grounded in equity in order to create a society where everyone thrives, because we recognize that these systemic barriers and decades and centuries of being disadvantaged cannot just be remedied by saying we are just going to treat everyone exactly the same.' The 14th Amendment isn't just being used to strip away programs intended to close gaps of racial disparites; it's also being retooled to potentially strip away the citizenship of millions of Americans, with a particular targeting of Hispanics and Latinos. Birthright citizenship, another major clause of the 14th Amendment guaranteeing citizenship for individuals born in the United States, is under new scrutiny after President Donald Trump signed an executive order calling for the end of the constitutional right for the children of immigrants. 'That was meant for the babies of slaves…It wasn't meant to scam the system and come into the country on a vacation,' said Trump while defending his birthright citizenship order at the White House after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of his petition to curb nationwide injunctions in a case seeking to enjoin his executive action. On Thursday, a federal judge blocked Trump's birthright order nationwide, certifying a class action suit on behalf of children impacted by his executive order. Rob Randhava, senior counsel at The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, said that birthright citizenship was primarily a 'response to the issue of slavery and the issues that culminated in the Civil War'—that constitutional right to citizenship would later be affirmed in future Supreme Court cases involving immigrants and their children. 'It's been pretty settled law in terms of who is entitled to citizenship under that clause for an extremely long time,' Randhava told theGrio. He explained, 'When somebody wants to try to start chipping away at it, then it really puts the entire structure of the 14th Amendment more broadly at risk and really a lot of uncertainty around for the possibility of first-class and second-class citizenship here in the United States.' Contemplating a more chilling outcome should the courts ultimately rule in Trump's favor to end birthright citizenship, Randhava said, 'It creates stateless people and basically a legal caste system in society that I think sets an extremely dangerous precedent.' He added, 'What does that say about their ability to amend other parts of the Constitution?' Trump seeking to amend the Constitution through executive action is unprecedented. By law, it can only be amended through a two-thirds vote in Congress or a national convention called by Congress at the request of two-thirds of the state legislatures. Ratification requires approval by three-fourths of the 50 U.S. states, either through their legislatures or special state conventions. Hewitt senses a more sinister plan by Trump and his MAGA allies. 'He's trying to chip away at the margins…If you look at the electoral map of how many states Trump won in the 2024 election [and] you have control in those states, that's enough states to call a constitutional convention and actually amend the Constitution and to bend it to his will,' he told theGrio. 'All the civil rights statutes that exist in the United States exist because they tie it back to the Reconstruction Amendments–the 13th, 14th, 15th Amendments. If those get altered or aggregated, then what do we have? Everything falls apart.' Hewitt clarified, 'They don't have that ability now,' but added, 'I think there are people watching that electoral map, knowing that if they can just get enough states to ratify regressive amendments, they can try to hold on to white power for even longer.' Anand told theGrio that while the 14th Amendment represented 'the beginnings of the birth of a multiracial democracy' in the U.S., 'What we are seeing now is an attempt to redefine at every level, what it means to be American.' She explained, 'This is an attempt to erase all the steps we have taken as a society since the 14th Amendment and the other civil rights amendments to have that greater understanding of what [that] means.' Anand said that while the Trump administration is aiming to dismantle birthright citizenship, Republicans are also attempting to 'limit [census] apportionment to citizens only'—as opposed to all residents in a state—which would reshape representation in U.S. Congress. She tells theGrio that it is 'contrary to the 14th Amendment and cannot be done through mere legislation.' As far as birthright citizenship and Trump's repeatedly saying the clause was intended only for the children of the enslaved, Hewitt said Trump is 'not an originalist or a textualist in terms of his reading.' 'Trump was given that line by someone else,' he told theGrio. 'They don't really care about original intent. So I don't think that there's any intellectual honesty coming from Trump.' Hewitt asserted, 'He's basically saying don't look at the words, look at the context. But that's exactly what the conservative jurists and scholars of public law say you shouldn't do.' He added, 'It really puts the lie to their notions of originalism and textualism–and it is quite selective.' More must-reads: Despite Trump's grip on DEI, Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear says red states have a duty to uplift racial justice Members of Congress introduce resolution demanding equal pay for Black women Trump amazed by African president's 'good English,' gleefully accepts praise for Nobel Peace Prize
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
The 5 big questions about the Senate battleground map
Here are the five biggest questions still hanging over the Senate race: Can Democrats get their dream recruits? Democrats are holding their breath for Roy Cooper and Janet Mills to decide if they'll run for Senate in North Carolina and Maine — a former and current governor, respectively, who could dramatically improve their party's chances to flip those swing seats. Their outstanding decisions have frozen recruitment in both states, signaling the party's strong preference for them. The odds look better for Democrats in North Carolina, where Cooper's top political strategist told POLITICO earlier this month that the former governor was 'strongly considering a run' and 'will decide in the coming weeks.' North Carolina Democrats have argued that Cooper's aw-shucks brand coupled with his strong fundraising network would instantly transform the now-open race. Tillis announced that he was not running for reelection last month after clashing with Trump over his tax-and-spend megabill. That 'puts a lot more pressure on Cooper to run,' said Democratic state Sen. Jay Chaudhuri, as he is 'heads and shoulders above every other candidate.' But Cooper hasn't cleared the field yet. Former Rep. Wiley Nickel entered the Senate primary in April, and he demurred when asked if he'd exit if Cooper jumped in. Rep. Don Davis is also eyeing the race. Republicans have yet to see a major candidate step up, although the president's daughter-in-law Lara Trump has expressed interest. National Democrats are still working to woo Mills, but her interest in challenging Sen. Susan Collins is less clear. Mills, who is 77 and won reelection in 2022 by 13 percentage points, told a Maine outlet in April that 'I'm not planning to run for another office' but added that 'things change week to week, month to month.' Jordan Wood, the former chief of staff to former California Rep. Katie Porter, has already raised $1 million in his bid against Collins. But some Maine Democrats are concerned that the race hasn't yet attracted bigger name contenders. Can a bloody Republican primary in Texas put the state on the map in November? Republicans have a messy — and expensive — primary on their hands down in Texas. Senate Majority Leader John Thune discussed the high-stakes intraparty brawl with Trump — as part of a broader discussion on the 2026 midterm map during a recent White House meeting — where state Attorney General Ken Paxton is primarying Sen. John Cornyn. GOP leaders have been privately trying to sway Trump for months to back Cornyn, arguing that his conservative bona fides match the president's agenda and he would be a safer bet in November. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) speaks to press outside of his office at the Hart Senate Office Building on April 28, 2025, in Washington. |Cornyn got a break after Paxton's wife announced she was filing for divorce on 'biblical grounds,' with his allies quickly seizing on the news. And he was able to get in some face time with Trump on Friday when he traveled with the president back to Texas. But so far, Trump appears poised to remain on the sidelines for a while longer as polling has shown Cornyn consistently trailing Paxton in a primary. Rep. Wesley Hunt, who is also mulling a Senate run, traveled with Trump on Friday as well.
