Lawyers with the Elias Law Group, a powerful Washington, D.C., law firm best known for representing Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, are asking the New Hampshire Supreme Court to revive their lawsuit aimed at overturning new absentee ballot rules.
Marc Elias’ firm filed the lawsuit last year, fronted by three New Hampshire residents with disabilities, challenging RSA 657:17-c. The law requires people who want to vote absentee to provide valid identification when registering to vote.
But Rockingham County Superior Court Judge David Ruoff dismissed the complaint in December, ruling the law does not violate the state Constitution, as Elias’ lawyers contend.
“Absentee voters requesting absentee ballots were already required to mail or provide their application to the secretary of state or town or city clerk,” Ruoff wrote in his decision. “RSA 657:17-c merely requires absentee voters to include with their ballot application a copy of their identification, a notarized signature, or to provide their identification to the town clerk when returning their application.”
The three plaintiffs argue the new identification requirement imposes an unfair and unconstitutional burden. Ruoff rejected that argument, ruling the law does not prevent them from voting by absentee ballot, even if it may be inconvenient.
“The identification requirements impose ordinary burdens on all absentee voters, and the possibility that it may cause additional burden on a subset of absentee voters does not render the entire statute unconstitutional,” Ruoff wrote.
Under changes passed this summer as part of SB 287, voters seeking to cast absentee ballots in New Hampshire are required to either bring a photo ID to a clerk’s office, submit a photocopy of their ID, or provide a notarized signature when requesting an absentee ballot.
The appeal, filed this month with the Supreme Court, has not yet reached the briefing stage, when both sides submit their full arguments. However, the filing submitted by Elias’ team indicates they want the justices to overturn Ruoff’s ruling.
The sole question the lawyers plan to present is “whether the Superior Court erred in holding, at the motion-to-dismiss stage, that Plaintiffs failed to adequately allege that SB 287 (2025) violates Part I, Article 11 of the New Hampshire Constitution by impermissibly burdening the fundamental right to vote.”
Elias is a prominent — and openly partisan — Washington attorney whose firm specializes in high-profile lawsuits challenging voting laws Democrats oppose. For example, Elias has sued to overturn state laws that bar ballots arriving after Election Day from being counted. In other states, the firm has defended laws allowing late-arriving ballots to be included in final tallies.
In New Hampshire, the lawsuit stirred controversy even before it was filed. NHJournal reported that Executive Councilor Karen Liot Hill (D-Lebanon) used her official government email account to solicit potential plaintiffs on the firm’s behalf.
Liot Hill declined to say whether she was paid for assisting Elias when asked by NHJournal. She later told InDepth NH she was simply advocating for her constituents.
“My job as an elected official is to advocate for my constituents, which is exactly what I do every day,” Liot Hill told InDepth NH.
Her actions drew criticism from state GOP leaders, calls for her resignation, and a written complaint to the Attorney General’s Office. While the attorney general ultimately cleared Liot Hill of wrongdoing, the office cautioned that her conduct created at least the appearance of impropriety.
“All executive branch officials should use care to avoid acting in any way that would create an appearance of impropriety,” wrote Brendan O’Donnell, who oversees the attorney general’s Election Law Unit, in a letter released last month. “Nonetheless, based on the text of the emails and the interviews with the recipients, this office cannot conclude that the emails constituted a misuse of position or otherwise violated the executive branch ethics code.”
This month, House Deputy Majority Leader Joe Sweeney, R-Salem, began pushing for an impeachment inquiry targeting Liot Hill over her actions related to the law firm, as well as other alleged misconduct.