NH Court Upholds Absentee Voter ID Law, Marking Major Win for NHGOP Voter ID Effort

CONCORD, NH — A Rockingham County Superior Court ruling upholding New Hampshire’s new absentee ballot voter ID law is being viewed as a significant legal and political victory for Republicans in Concord, who have spent years pushing to strengthen voter identification requirements and align absentee voting with in-person standards.

In a Dec. 11 order, Superior Court Judge David W. Ruoff dismissed a constitutional challenge to RSA 657:17-c, the statute requiring voters requesting an absentee ballot to verify their identity by submitting a copy of a photo ID, providing a notarized signature, or presenting identification in person to a city or town clerk Order Dismissing Complaint.

The court agreed with state officials that the law does not impose severe or discriminatory burdens on voters and instead brings absentee voting into line with long-standing in-person voting requirements, which already mandate proof of identity before a ballot is issued. Ruoff wrote that the statute “merely requires absentee voters to choose between three distinct methods to provide one form of identification,” concluding those requirements are reasonable and constitutional Order Dismissing Complaint.

Beyond the technical legal findings, the decision marks a turning point in New Hampshire’s long-running voter ID debate. For years, Republican lawmakers have argued that absentee voting represented a gap in election security, with looser identity verification than voting at the polls. RSA 657:17-c was designed to close that gap without eliminating absentee voting or restricting access to the ballot.

The ruling is especially notable for its treatment of voter fraud, an issue that has divided New Hampshire courts in the past. In upholding the law, Ruoff explicitly recognized that the state has a legitimate interest in preventing voter fraud and securing elections, citing prior opinions describing election integrity as a government interest “of the highest order” Order Dismissing Complaint.

That conclusion stands in contrast to the New Hampshire Supreme Court’s 2021 decision striking down SB 3, a voter registration law that the court found imposed unreasonable burdens and was not substantially related to preventing fraud. In that case, the court emphasized the lack of evidence of widespread fraud and faulted the law for imposing complex requirements and penalties on voters 2021027-secretary-of-state.

The absentee ballot law upheld this week avoids many of those pitfalls. The Superior Court emphasized that the statute does not exclude voters from the process, does not impose post-election penalties, and offers multiple straightforward ways for voters to verify their identity. The court also rejected arguments that the law is unconstitutional simply because it may be more inconvenient for some voters, noting that ordinary administrative burdens do not invalidate election laws.

For Republicans, the ruling validates a strategy that has unfolded over multiple legislative sessions: incremental changes aimed at ensuring that all ballots, whether cast in person or by mail, are subject to comparable identity checks. GOP lawmakers have argued that these steps are necessary to maintain public confidence in elections, even in the absence of proven large-scale fraud.

With the lawsuit dismissed, RSA 657:17-c remains in force, and New Hampshire’s absentee voting process will now operate under the same basic voter ID framework that applies at polling places. The decision not only secures the law’s future but also signals a judiciary more receptive to the Legislature’s stated interest in election integrity, bringing New Hampshire closer to the standards upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in voter ID cases.