Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Election Litigation Access topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would let private citizens sue over alleged violations of RSA 6:59 after DOJ review, sponsor says
Summary
A bill introduced by Representative Ross Berry would permit a private citizen to sue over alleged violations of RSA 6:59 after the Department of Justice has had a short opportunity to act, with an exception for matters within 15 days of an election.
Representative Ross Berry told the House Election Law Committee HB 514 would allow citizens to bring lawsuits over alleged violations of RSA 6:59 if the Attorney General's Office declines to act, while preserving a short DOJ response window and certain protections against abusive suits.
Berry said a court decision had interpreted RSA 6:59 to reserve enforcement to the Attorney General, leaving private individuals without a judicial remedy in some cases. "I believe you have a right, as a citizen to seek redress from your government, and one person should not be able to determine whether or not you get to seek redress," Berry said.
Under the bill, a citizen would first notify the Department of Justice and give it up to five days to respond; if the DOJ declines or does not act within the window, the citizen could proceed to court. The bill contains an exception allowing immediate court action if the alleged violation occurs within 15 days of an election.
Committee members raised several concerns. Representative Lane asked how attorney fees would be handled; Berry said the bill requires Superior Court approval for attorneys' fees so that suits are not used as a payday for lawyers. Representative Muirhead asked whether a private suit would target the state or an individual poll worker; Berry said the bill is primarily meant to give aggrieved citizens access to the courts and would allow claims against the state or its agents depending on the claim.
Representative Timothy Horrigan testified in opposition, saying the bill "goes way too far" and would duplicate or conflict with existing remedies such as the Ballot Law Commission and Department of Justice processes. Horrigan also raised timing concerns for election cases and cautioned that litigation in Superior Court could be too slow for time-sensitive election disputes.
The chair reported online testimony as 8 in support and 259 opposed; the committee closed the hearing with multiple members asking for further work and clarification.
Why it matters: The bill addresses the narrow but consequential question of who may seek judicial relief under RSA 6:59. It raises trade-offs between individual access to courts, the role of the Attorney General's Office, and the potential for increased pre-election litigation.
What’s next: Committee members signaled the need for work-session drafting to clarify attorney-fee provisions, the government defendants that should be named in suits, and the interplay with existing administrative remedies.
