THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

 

In Case No. 2004-0361, Petition of Senator Clifton Below & a., the court on June 1, 2004, issued the following order:

As required by the court’s May 28, 2004 order, the parties have filed an agreed-upon statement identifying the legislative districts potentially affected by HB 1292 and HB 264. According to this agreed-upon statement, the following house districts are affected by HB 1292:

2002 Court Numbering Scheme HB 1292 Numbering Scheme
District 2 Coos Districts 2 & 3
District 3 Coos Districts 3 & 4
District 17 Grafton Districts 9 & 10
District 24 Cheshire Districts 1 & 2
District 26 Cheshire Districts 4 & 5
District 29 Belknap Districts 1 & 2
District 30 Belknap Districts 3 & 4
District 31 Belknap Districts 5 & 6
District 34 Merrimack Districts 3, 4 & 5
District 37 Merrimack Districts 8 & 9
District 49 Hillsborough Districts 8 & 17
District 50 Hillsborough Districts 9, 10 & 17
District 58 Hillsborough Districts 19 & 27
District 62 Hillsborough Districts 23 & 24
District 63 Hillsborough District 26
District 64 Hillsborough District 26
District 65 Hillsborough Districts 25 & 26
District 66 Hillsborough District 27
District 67 Strafford Districts 1 & 2
District 79 Rockingham Districts 7 & 8
District 80 Rockingham Districts 9 & 10

See Burling v. Speaker of the House, 148 N.H. 143, 171-80 (2002). Additionally, the parties agree that senate districts 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13 and 15 are affected by HB 264. See Below v. Secretary of State, 148 N.H. 1, 17-23 (2002).

The plaintiffs have also filed a supplemental statement. In it, the plaintiffs allege that they believe that "all House districts contained in affected Senate districts are themselves affected because individuals deciding whether to run for either the House or the Senate cannot make a reasoned decision unless they know what will ultimately be their Senate District."

In light of the parties’ agreed-upon statement and the plaintiffs’ supplemental statement, the court hereby lifts the stay of the statutory filing period for senate candidates for senate districts 1, 3, 4, 6, 10, 14, 16, and 17-24. See Below, 148 N.H. at 17-23.

We cannot, however, determine which additional house districts the plaintiffs allege are affected by HB 1292. In part, this is because HB 1292 identifies house districts by county followed by a sequential number, whereas the redistricting plan set forth in Burling named districts by a statewide sequential number. Accordingly, we are compelled to continue to enjoin the statutory filing period for all house districts until further court order.

Broderick, Nadeau, Dalianis, Duggan, and Galway, JJ., concurred.

 

                                                            Eileen Fox,
                                                            Clerk