NHCaseLaw.com

The parties are before the Court in a civil action concerning a telephone jamming operation said to have been engaged in by defendants during the November, 2002 elections. That jamming operation was intended to disrupt or frustrate a "Get Out The Vote" telephone effort on the part of the plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs Raymund Buckley, Jane Gremons, the New Hampshire Democratic Party and Jane Doe ("the plaintiffs") have brought a civil action against defendant New Hampshire Republican State Committee ("NHRSC"), Charles McGee, Milo Enterprises, Inc. Allen Raymond, Chris Cupit, and GOP Marketplace concerning an alleged telephone jamming scheme that is said to have taken place during the November, 2002 election. With respect to each defendant, the plaintiffs allege four counts, including: (1) interference with federal and state constitutional rights to vote and participate in elections; (2) interference with state and federal constitutional rights to free association; (3) civil conspiracy; (4) a request for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief.

This matter arises out of an alleged phone-jamming scheme during the November 2002 election. The background of this matter has been summarized in earlier orders. Therefore, the Court proceeds directly to the merits of the pending motions to dismiss, regarding which a hearing was held on April 11, 2006.

The petitioners seek a declaratory ruling that RSA 662:5 (Supp. 2007), which delineates the state representative districts, is unconstitutional. They also seek to enjoin the respondent from conducting the 2008 primary and general elections based on the current house districts. The respondent objects, and moves to dismiss the petition. By agreement of the parties, the Court conducted a consolidated preliminary and final hearing on this matter on May 22, 2008. Upon review of the parties' pleadings, their submissions, and the applicable law, the Court Finds and rules as follows.

At issue in plaintiffs' motion to compel are various documents that plaintiffs had sought from defendant New Hampshire Republican State Committee ("NHRSC") during discovery in this civil action. In earlier proceedings, the Court had entered various discovery orders. Plaintiffs assert that NHRSC has failed to comply with the discovery orders as entered by the Court. The items which presently appear to constitute the central focus of the plaintiffs' motion concern a report arising from an investigation of the underlying telephone jamming issues that had been conducted by legal counsel for defendant NHRSC, and its supporting documents. Counsel for NHRSC submits that the material at issue is protected by the attorney-client privilege as well as the attorney work-product privilege.

Before the Court is a Petition for Declaratory Judgment which challenges as unconstitutional the provisions of RSA 656:5 which mandate that "the names of the candidates of the party which received the largest number of votes at the last preceding state general election shall be listed first" and that within each party the candidates be listed alphabetically. The petitioners allege that RSA 656:5 violates Part I, Article 11 of the New Hampshire Constitution, which guarantees that all citizens having proper qualifications shall have an equal right to be elected into office; and Part I, Articles 1,2,10,12 and 14, which guarantee equal protection under the law. The petitioners request that the Court define an "impartial" method for creating ballots in place of RSA 656:5 and declare any provision contrary to that "impartial" method unconstitutional.

We have been asked to give our opinion on two questions: first, whether enactment of SB 436 would “violate Part I, Article 11 of the Constitution of New Hampshire,” and second, whether enactment of SB 436 would “violate Part I, Article 28-a, of the Constitution of New Hampshire.” We answer the first question in the affirmative and the second question in the negative. Although those submitting memoranda address the issue, we have not been asked and therefore do not opine upon whether SB 436 infringes upon the associational rights of political parties guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

By order of November 26, 2007, after a merits hearing, this Court found unconstitutional the Party Access to Voter information Act, Section 46 of RSA 654, That Act amended RSA 654, Voters and Checklists, effective July l8, 2007, to authorize the Secretary of State to provide a political party, for a fee, with the name, address, gender, birth year, voter history, and party affiliation of every registered voter in the state. The definition of "party” effectively limited access to such voter information to the two major political parties — The Democratic Party and the Republican Party. The Libertarian Party of New Hampshire, a so—called "minor party,” instituted this litigation and was ultimately successful in obtaining a declaratory ruling that the statute is unconstitutional.