Michael Garrity
Role at the time: Spokesperson for the New Hampshire attorney general
Statement summary
Garrity defends seeking an emergency stay on the grounds that election officials need consistent rules and workable guidance.
“The State has asked the United States Supreme Court for an emergency stay in this matter. New Hampshire has a strong interest in ensuring that its election laws are applied consistently and that local election officials have clear, workable guidance in administering elections”
The report quotes the attorney general's spokesman and the League president after the appellate stay was denied. It distinguishes HB 323 from the broader directive and describes student IDs being considered with other evidence.
Why we used this label
The reference point is the state's categorical exclusion of student IDs from consideration under existing identity-verification safeguards, the rule in the April 23 directive that the district court blocked on October 2. Garrity, speaking for the attorney general's office, says the state sought an emergency stay because it has "a strong interest in ensuring that its election laws are applied consistently" with "clear, workable guidance" for local officials. The stay would let the state enforce the exclusion while it appeals, so we labeled it Defended or excused. The defense rests on election administration rather than on the merits of student IDs. The closest competing label is Mixed or conditional; it loses because the statement expresses no reservation about keeping the state's rules in force.