Skip to content

News · Elections and voting · New Hampshire

NH attorney general orders halt to anonymous Senate mailers

The state directed a Massachusetts printer and a Washington firm to stop anonymous mailings connected to a Senate race.

NH attorney general orders halt to anonymous Senate mailers

Key takeaways

  • The New Hampshire attorney general issued the order.
  • It covers a Massachusetts printer and a Washington, D.C., firm.
  • The businesses were told to stop anonymous Senate-race mailers.
  • No candidate or specific election is directly linked.

Order targets two out-of-state businesses

New Hampshire’s attorney general has ordered a Massachusetts printing company and a Washington, D.C., firm to stop anonymous mailers tied to a Senate race. The directive applies to the two businesses involved with the mail pieces. No candidate is directly linked to the development, and the action is not directly tied to a specific election.

Calling a mailer anonymous means voters are not told who is responsible for the communication. The attorney general’s order directs both entities to stop the mailers. One is a printer in Massachusetts, while the other is a firm in the District of Columbia.

The order addresses communications about a Senate contest. It does not establish a candidate matchup or connect the mailers to a named candidate.

What happens next

The immediate question is whether the Massachusetts printer and the Washington firm comply with the order and stop the anonymous mailings. Any additional enforcement action would require another step from the attorney general’s office.

Further public action could clarify the scope of the order, including which mail pieces it covers and what role each business had. Any later filings or announcements could also explain whether the order has been satisfied or whether the state will pursue additional action. Until then, the directive’s central requirement is straightforward: both businesses must stop the anonymous Senate-race mailers.

What to watch

  • Whether both businesses comply with the order
  • Whether the attorney general takes additional action
  • Whether later records clarify each business’s role

Was this useful?

Related stories