New Hampshire Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in NRF-Supported Challenge Against Gerrymandered Maps
Contact
Jena Doyle
doyle@redistrictingfoundation.org
Washington, D.C. – Today, the New Hampshire Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the case Brown v. Scanlan, an ongoing legal challenge to New Hampshire’s state Senate and Executive Council maps as partisan gerrymanders. The National Redistricting Foundation (NRF) is supporting New Hampshire voters in this case.
“Drawn to ignore the will of the people and to the sole benefit of Republican senators and counselors, the Senate and Executive Council maps are clear partisan gerrymanders and in violation of the New Hampshire Constitution,” said Olivia Mendoza, Director of Litigation and Policy for the NRF. “New Hampshire voters have always been closely divided between both political parties in statewide races, and, as a result, New Hampshire is a highly competitive state. The maps should reflect the will of the voters, not the will of partisan agendas. It is the responsibility of the Court to protect the constitutional rights of all Granite Staters in order to allow equal voting power in elections. We look forward to presenting our argument before the court.”
The state Senate and Executive Council maps are being challenged under several different clauses of the New Hampshire Constitution. First, they violate the state’s Free and Equal Elections Clause because they were enacted to and will prevent Democratic voters from freely and equally participating in the political process. Second, they violate the state’s guarantee of equal protection because they dilute the voting strength of Democratic voters and deny them their right to a substantially equal vote compared to Republican voters. Third, they violate the state’s guarantees of free speech and association by retaliating against Democratic voters based on their political views and diluting their ability to elect candidates of their choice.
###
