Legal Opinion
In re Below
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Decided June 22, 2004No. 2004-361PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Per curiam
To safeguard the equal voting rights of the New Hampshire electorate, this court, in 2002, was called upon to establish new district plans for the house and senate. See Below v. Secretary of State, 148 N.H. 1 (2002); Burling v. Speaker of the House, 148 N.H. 143 (2002). This task fell to the court because, despite its constitutional mandate to do so, the New Hampshire legislature was unsuccessful in its efforts to reapportion the house and senate during the session following the 2000 census. Below, 148 N.H. at 3; Burling, 148 N.H. at 145-46.
“The right to vote freely for the candidate of one’s…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Reynolds v. SimsSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Connor v. FinchSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Scott v. GermanoSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Smith v. StateSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1978
- People Ex Rel. Salazar v. DavidsonSupreme Court of Colorado · 2003
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Baines v. New Hampshire Senate PresidentSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 2005
- State v. AddisonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 2013
- Akins v. Secretary of StateSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 2006
- Londonderry School District SAU 12 v. StateSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 2006
- Flores v. Town of IslipDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2019
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.