by Brent Addleman
Voters in New Hampshire have filed a brief to the state’s Supreme Court as part of a legal challenge to district maps.
The National Redistricting Foundation (NRF) filed the brief on behalf of voters in Brown v. Scanlan. The case focuses on State Senate and Executive Council maps as being partisan gerrymanders.
According to a release, oral arguments will be heard May 11.
“The [State] Senate and Executive Council maps were clearly drawn for one purpose: to illegitimately increase the political power of the Republican party in a way that is not representative of New Hampshire voters,” Olivia Mendoza, director of litigation and policy for the NRF, said in a statement. “Not content with gerrymandering their way to political power, Republicans are also slicing and dicing the state constitution to make an argument defending their partisan gerrymander. We are asking the court to protect New Hampshirites’ constitutional right to vote on equal terms and have substantially equal voting power in [State] Senate and Executive Council elections. We look forward to presenting our case to the Court at oral argument.”
The maps, according to a release, have been challenged through several different clauses contained within the state’s constitution. The maps allegedly violate the state’s Free and Equal Elections Clause as voters claim, “they were enacted to and will prevent Democratic voters from freely and equally participating in the political process.”
Another point of the case the voters allege is that by diluting the voting strength of Democrats, the maps violate the state’s guarantee of equal protection. Plus, the case alleges the maps are in violation of the state’s “guarantee of free speech and association” by “retaliating against Democratic voters” in a manner that “political views and diluting” an ability to elect a candidate of their choosing.
– – –
Brent Addleman is a contributor to The Center Square.
