ACLU warns HB289 would condition New Hampshire voting rights on parents' tax claims, citing constitutional and enforcement concerns

The House Election Law Subcommittee on Friday heard testimony on House Bill 289, a relist on domicile qualifications that would bar a person from claiming domicile in New Hampshire if they are claimed as a tax dependent by parents who live outside the state. Henry Clementowich, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire, told the panel he believes the provision raises constitutional and practical problems.

Clementowich said the bill would "condition someone else's right to vote on the actions of another, which is their parents," and called that an unconstitutional condition because other domicile tests are within a person's control. He also warned that tax returns are confidential and that a young voter "would be at a loss" to know whether a parent had claimed them as a dependent.

The issue matters because domicile is central to the right to vote in New Hampshire: residents must establish domicile to register and to vote. Clementowich said tying domicile to a parent's tax filing would give parents a de facto veto over a dependent's ability to vote in the state and would be difficult or impossible to enforce because moderators and state officials generally cannot access another person's tax returns.

Michael O'Brien, a lobbyist with Pretty Strategies representing America Votes, told the committee the University of New Hampshire residency and in-state tuition rules illustrate how dependence is treated differently in administrative contexts. O'Brien read UNH's standard that a student "is considered to be that of their parent unless the student is emancipated" and noted UNH determines residency at the time of admission for a degree. He said those tuition rules have a longer establishment period than typical voting laws.

Representative Burnham asked follow-up questions but did not press for immediate action. The subcommittee chair reiterated that no formal actions would be taken without a quorum; earlier in the meeting the chair said HB608 had been listed in error and would not be reviewed by the subcommittee. The panel did not vote on HB289 Friday.

Supporters of HB289 have argued the bill would clarify how domicile and tax dependency interact. Opponents, including Clementowich and O'Brien in their testimony, urged caution: Clementowich recommended against a statutory test that depends on another person's (a parent's) private tax choices, and O'Brien highlighted that university tuition definitions do not map neatly onto voting-domicile standards.

The subcommittee said it will continue to gather information and indicated the full Election Law Committee could take up bills that the subcommittee does not act on. No formal vote on HB289 was recorded at the working session.

The subcommittee meeting record shows members also discussed logistics and next steps for drafting a report; no next-step deadlines specific to HB289 were set on the record.