The New Hampshire Supreme Court has held that partisan gerrymandering claims present nonjusticiable political questions, offering two reasons. First, “the New Hampshire Constitution contains a textually demonstrable commitment to redistrict to the legislature,” which means that New Hampshire courts can only resolve state redistricting claims when the plaintiff alleges that the legislature violated the constitutional provisions underlying that commitment. Brown v. Sec’y of State, No. 2022-0629, — A.3d —-, 2023 WL 8245078, at *4 (N.H. Nov. 29, 2023). Partisan gerrymandering claims, however, do not “implicate” those provisions. Id. Second, echoing Rucho’s interpretation of the federal constitution, the court concluded that the New Hampshire Constitution does not contain “judicially discernible and manageable standards for adjudicating claims of extreme partisan gerrymandering.” Id. In discussing this latter basis for holding partisan gerrymandering claims nonjusticiable, the court contrasted New Hampshire with “other states that have codified limits on partisan gerrymandering or amended their state constitutions to limit or prohibit partisan favoritism in redistricting[.]” Id. at *7.