No. 25-1390October Term 2025Before Arguments
Daniel Richard, Petitioner v. Kelly Ayotte, Governor of New Hampshire, et al.
from the Supreme Court of New Hampshire.
Case status
- Current stage
- Before Arguments
- Latest event
- Accepted by the Court
- Decision timing
- No window until argument is scheduled.
- What it's about
from the Supreme Court of New Hampshire.
Question presented
1. Whether the New Hampshire Supreme Court denied meaningful judicial review under the Elections Clause and Qualifications Clauses of the U.S. Constitution, in violation of Moore v. Harper, 600 U.S. 1 (2023), by declaring N.H. Const, pt. II, art. 32 “silent” on the method of ballot counting expressly required by that provision and by disregarding its own binding precedent in Fischer v. Governor, 145 N.H. 28 (2000). 2. Whether the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as interpreted in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), and Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964), is violated when a state court dismisses as a non-justiciable “generalized grievance” a qualified voter’s claim that his in-person, hand-counted ballot—cast under strict constitutional verification standards, was commingled and tabulated with hundreds of thousands of absentee and machine-counted ballots processed under materially weaker verification and transparency standards.
- Case path
Supreme Court of New Hampshire / Accepted by the Court
- Area
Elections, Civil Rights
Timing
Expected by late June 2026, if argued this term
The Court granted review but has not yet scheduled oral argument. Once argued, the median case reaches a decision in 94 days. Nearly all cases are decided by the end of the term in which they are argued.
Briefing
What it's about
A New Hampshire voter is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear his challenge to a state-court decision about ballot counting. He says the New Hampshire Supreme Court wrongly treated the state constitution as silent on counting rules and wrongly rejected his equal protection claim as too general for courts to decide.
Argument
The petition says the New Hampshire Supreme Court denied meaningful review and wrongly dismissed the voter's equal protection claim. The U.S. Supreme Court has not scheduled oral argument.
Impact
The case could affect how voters challenge election procedures when different kinds of ballots are checked and counted under different standards. For example, it could shape whether an in-person voter can sue after his hand-counted ballot is mixed with absentee and machine-counted ballots.
What is at stake in Daniel Richard v. Ayotte?
The petition asks whether a state court gave too little review to claims about ballot-counting rules and unequal treatment of votes. It also tests when one voter can challenge broader election practices.
Who could be affected by Daniel Richard v. Ayotte?
New Hampshire voters, election officials, and state judges could be affected. The case could influence challenges to mixing in-person, absentee, and machine-counted ballots under different verification standards.
What happens next in Daniel Richard v. Ayotte?
The justices must decide whether to take the case. Watch for a scheduling move or an order saying whether the Court will hear it.
Related cases
Grounding
- Grounding
- Primary materials plus reporting.
- Note
- Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.
- Checked
- Jul 17, 2026
- Method
- Methodology