Should the government's suit for New Hampshire's voter list be dismissed?
The district judge dismissed the suit in June 2026. The United States appealed, and the First Circuit will hear argument on December 10, 2026.
New Hampshire and the voters ask the court to dismiss the suit
The state argued the complaint fails to state a claim under either the civil rights records law or the Help America Vote Act.
The four voters filed their own motion to dismiss with overlapping arguments.
The government argued the records law entitles it to the voter list and that its demand should be enforced like a subpoena.
The voters and the state replied in support of dismissal.
Judge Laplante heard argument on the motions to dismiss and the motion to compel.
The judge held the records law covers what officials receive from voters, not a list they create, and the election-law claim lacked facts.
The United States asks the First Circuit to reverse the dismissal
The government appealed the dismissal and filed its opening brief and appendix.
New Hampshire asks the First Circuit to affirm without full briefing
The state asked the appeals court to decide the appeal quickly on the papers.
The government responded to the request.
The court denied the request without prejudice and told the state to file its response brief.
The voters and New Hampshire defend the dismissal on appeal
The four voters filed their appellee brief defending the dismissal.
The state tendered its appellee brief.
The court calendared the appeal for argument on December 10, 2026, in Boston.
Next step: Oral argument
Should New Hampshire be ordered to produce its voter list and records?No: moot once the suit was dismissed ·
The government asked the court to order the records produced. The court denied that request as moot when it dismissed the suit.
The United States asks the court to compel production of the records
The government asked the court to order New Hampshire to hand over its voter list and related records under the civil rights records law.
The state and the voter intervenors each objected to the request.
The government replied in support of its request.
Having dismissed the suit, the judge denied the request to compel as moot.
Should a member of the public join to limit the voters' role?No: the court denied Hall's request ·
Daniel Hall, without a lawyer, asked to join to limit the voter intervenors' participation. After a hearing, the court denied his request.
Daniel Hall asks to join to limit the voter intervenors' role
Hall asked to join for the limited purpose of seeking an order restricting the voter intervenors' participation.
The voters opposed Hall's request.
Hall replied in support of his request.
The government took no position on Hall's request.
Judge Laplante held a short hearing and then denied Hall's motion.
Should four New Hampshire voters be allowed to join the case?Yes: the voters joined the case ·
Four voters asked to join on the state's side. The court let them in over the government's initial opposition.
Four New Hampshire voters ask to join the case to defend the state
Neal Kurk, Robert Perry, Louise Spencer, and Christopher Cole asked to join to protect their own voter data.
The government opposed the voters' request.
The voters replied, pointing to orders letting voters intervene in similar Oregon and Michigan suits.
The government then filed a notice taking no position on the request.
The magistrate judge granted the voters' motion to intervene.