New Hampshire Defends State’s Authority Over Elections Against Federal Overreach
New Hampshire’s Secretary of State, David Scanlan, has firmly resisted President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at restricting mail-in voting. Scanlan asserts that the federal government cannot dictate state-run election processes, emphasizing New Hampshire’s sovereignty in managing elections. This stance highlights a significant pushback against federal attempts to influence state election practices.
Federal Government’s Attempt to Restrict Mail-In Voting
President Trump’s executive order, issued on March 31, 2026, seeks to exert federal control by requiring the Department of Homeland Security to compile comprehensive lists of voting-age U.S. Citizens and mandating the U.S. Postal Service to oversee mail-in ballot standards. This move is perceived as an effort to place new restrictions on voting, particularly targeting mail-in ballots, ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
Scanlan, a Republican, has articulated that the federal government “cannot usurp New Hampshire’s express constitutional authority to run elections.” He emphasizes that New Hampshire has a longstanding tradition of ensuring elections are secure, transparent and trustworthy. The state requires absentee voters to meet specific conditions and mandates proof of U.S. Citizenship for first-time voters, reinforcing its commitment to secure voter registration procedures.
Constitutional Authority and State Rights
The U.S. Constitution grants states the authority to determine the time, place, and manner of elections, with Congress holding the power to enact changes. Scanlan’s response underscores this constitutional provision, rejecting federal efforts to override state election laws and protect voter information privacy.
New Hampshire’s election practices, including limited-excuse absentee voting, are designed to accommodate voters who are out of town, have employment commitments, family responsibilities, or religious observances on election day. These measures ensure that voting remains accessible while maintaining security and integrity.
Bipartisan Resistance
Scanlan’s opposition is mirrored by Maine’s Secretary of State, Shenna Bellows, a Democrat, who also denounced the executive order as unconstitutional. Bellows stated, “President Trump clearly didn’t obtain the copy of the Constitution I sent him. This Executive Order is laughably unconstitutional, and Maine is not going to obey in advance because the President isn’t in charge of elections, the states are.”
This bipartisan resistance underscores a broader defense of state rights and election integrity against perceived federal overreach. Both state officials are committed to defending the rule of law and the integrity of their respective elections, regardless of political pressure.
Conclusion
New Hampshire’s firm stance against federal interference in state elections reflects a broader commitment to upholding constitutional authority and ensuring secure, transparent voting processes. As debates over election integrity and voter access continue, the actions of state officials like David Scanlan and Shenna Bellows highlight the importance of state sovereignty in the American electoral system.
Keep reading