Cited by

Akins v. Sec’y of State, 154 N.H. 67, 73 (2006) (setting out strict scrutiny standard).

24 of State, 148 N.H. 1, 2 (2002) (per curiam) (Below I) (quoting Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 17 (1964)); see Akins v. Sec’y of State, 154 N.H. 67, 71 (2006) (recognizing that the right to vote is a fundamental right).

ur arguments on appeal.2 First, it asserts that the trial court erred in facially invalidating SB 3 and should have ruled instead that “the plaintiffs failed to meet their heavy burden of showing that SB 3 was unconstitutional in every set of circumstances.” Second, the State argues that we should overrule Guare because it departs from the balancing test we adopted in Akins v. Secretary of State, 154 N.H. 67 (2006), and because it is “substantively incorrect.” Third, the State asserts that becau

ln addition, when considering claims raised under Part l, Article 11 of the State Constitution, we have used the same level of scrutiny analysis used in considering equal protection claims involving voting rights under the State and Federal Constitutions Y Akins v. Sec’y of State, 154 N.H. 67, 71-73 (2006).

The 2 trial court reasoned that strict scrutiny was required because the right to vote is a fundamental right, see Akins v. Sec’y of State, 154 N.H. 67, 71 (2006), and because, in the trial court’s view, the subject language severely burdened the right to vote by confusing potential registrants and causing otherwise qualified voters to forgo registering to vote.

Akins v. Sec’y of State, 154 N.H. 67, 71 (2006).

Akins v. Sec'y of State, 154 N.H. 67, 70, 904 A.2d 702 (2006).

Akins v. Sec’y of State, 154 N.H. 67, 70 (2006).

“Whether or not a statute is constitutional is a question of law, which we review de novo.” Akins v. Sec’y of State, 154 N.H. 67, 70 (2006).

Akins v. Sec’y of State, 154 N.H. 67, 70 (2006).

" Akins v. Sec'y of State, 154 N.H. 67, 70, 904 A.2d 702 (2006).

Akins v. Sec’y of State, 154 N.H. 67, 71-72 (2006); see Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut, 479 U.S. 208, 217 (1986).

Akins v. Sec’y of State, 154 N.H. 67, 70 (2006).

While “generally, when governmental action impinges upon a fundamental right, such matters are entitled to review under strict judicial scrutiny,” Akins v. Sec’y of State, 154 N.H. 67, 71 (2006), “[n]ot every restriction of a right classified as fundamental incurs ‘strict’ scrutiny.” Fallon, Some Confusions About Dtie Process, Judicial Review, and Constitutional Remedies, 93 COLUM.

Akins v. Sec’y of State, 154 N.H. 67, 71 (2006); Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720, 728 (1997); cf. Fuller v. Oregon, 417 U.S. 40, 48-49 (1974) (applying rational basis review to equal protection challenge to statute requiring convicted defendants to repay costs of defense).

Akins v. Secretary of State, 154 N.H. ___, ___, 904 A.2d 702, 706 (2006) ("[G]enerally, when governmental action impinges upon a fundamental right, such matters are entitled to review under strict judicial scrutiny.").

Akins v. Secretary of State, 154 N.H. 67,70-71 (2006).