Theresa Norelli & a. v. Secretary of State & a.

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2022-0184, Theresa Norelli & a. v.
Secretary of State & a., the court on May 31, 2022,
issued the following order:
In our May 12, 2022 opinion issued in this case, we addressed two
preliminary questions. See Norelli v. Secretary of State, 175 N.H. ___, ___
(decided May 12, 2022) (slip op. at 2). First, whether the current statute
establishing a district plan for New Hampshire’s two congressional districts, see
RSA 662:1 (2016), violates Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution.
Id. at ___ (slip op. at 2). Second, if so, whether this court must establish a new
district plan if the legislature fails to do so according to federal constitutional
requisites in a timely fashion after having had an adequate opportunity to do so.
Id. at ___ (slip op. at 2) (quotation omitted). We answered the first question in the
affirmative. Id. at ___ (slip op. at 2). In answering the second question, we
determined that, upon a demonstrated impasse, this court must establish a new
district plan and, in doing so, we would apply the “least change” approach. Id. at
___ (slip op. at 2). As a result of our answers to those preliminary questions, we
further concluded that we would take the necessary steps to formulate a
congressional district plan in the absence of a legally enacted plan. Id. at ___
(slip op. at 15).

Accordingly, on the date that we issued our opinion, we appointed
Nathaniel Persily to serve as special master and directed him to prepare and
issue to the court, no earlier than May 27, 2022, a report and a recommended
congressional redistricting plan for New Hampshire pursuant to the “least
change” approach and other criteria set forth in our opinion and in the
appointment order. We identified May 27 because we had determined, based on
representations made during oral argument on the preliminary questions, that
May 26, 2022, was the last date for legislative action in this session on a
congressional redistricting plan, unless the legislature were to suspend its rules
or to meet in special session.

As of May 27, no bill establishing new congressional districts had become a
law pursuant to Part II, Article 44 of the State Constitution. The special master
therefore issued on that date the Report and Plan of the Special Master, which
proposes that the court adopt a plan that would equalize the populations of New
Hampshire’s two congressional districts by moving the following towns from the
First Congressional District to the Second Congressional District: Jackson;
Albany; Sandwich; Campton; and New Hampton. Upon receiving the special
master’s report and proposed plan, we provided the parties, intervenors, and
amici curiae an opportunity to file supplemental memoranda on the report and
proposed plan, as well as on the status of redistricting legislation and the related
need for us to adopt a plan by June 1, 2022. We held oral argument on those
issues on May 31. It is now undisputed that a demonstrated impasse has
occurred as a result of the Governor’s May 27 vetoes of two congressional
redistricting bills, Senate Bill 200 and House Bill 52.

Having considered each of the proposed plans, written submissions, and
oral arguments, the court hereby adopts as the congressional district plan for
New Hampshire the plan recommended by the special master as depicted and
described in exhibits 1 and 4 of the Report and Plan of the Special Master. The
plan fully complies with our May 12 opinion and with the “least change”
approach and other criteria set forth in our May 12 order appointing the special
master.

Appended to this order is the Report and Plan of the Special Master,
including its exhibits and appendix of documents. The clerk of this court is
directed to file an attested copy of this order and the foregoing material, along
with the census block equivalency files provided by the special master, with the
Secretary of State on or before June 1, 2022. Upon filing, the congressional
district plan shall take effect. Unless otherwise ordered by the court, the filing of
any motion to reconsider shall not stay the effectiveness of the congressional
district plan.

So ordered.

MACDONALD, C.J., and HICKS, BASSETT, HANTZ MARCONI, and
DONOVAN, JJ., concurred.

Timothy A. Gudas,
Clerk

2