Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Absentee Id Notary topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Notarize absentee applications? Bill divides clerks, advocates and legal experts
Summary
A bill to require notarized absentee applications and a color copy of photo ID drew strong opposition from town clerks, disability advocates and voting rights groups, who said the requirements would deny ballots to people who can’t easily access a notary.
Representative Kelly Potenza introduced HB 608, which would require a color copy of a valid government photo ID and a notarized application in order to receive an absentee ballot. She said the measure aims to align absentee application procedures with the identification rules in place for in‑person voting and to prevent mismatches between in‑person ID verification and mail or drop‑off processes.
Legal testimony and municipal practice differed sharply. Attorney Daniel Richards and other proponents said that affidavit practices were historically stricter and that absent proper verification the state has an unequal system that must be corrected. They traced an historical thread to earlier statutory language requiring witnesses or notarization and argued for uniform verification.
Secretary of State David Scanlon told the committee the current affidavit envelope language and the Secretary of State's form do not presently include slots intended for a notary signature and that imposing notarization would create administrative confusion absent coordinated changes to forms and instructions. He also noted practical limits: absentee applications may be submitted by email or fax and third parties frequently distribute application forms; adding notarization would affect those pathways.
Town clerks and election administrators (Dan Healy, Nashua; Joan Darje, NHCTCA; Tina Guilfoyle, Derry) opposed the bill, citing accessibility, cost and logistics. Witnesses and advocates (ABLE New Hampshire, Open Democracy, New Hampshire Campaign for Voting Rights, ACLU) said notarization and a color‑ID copy would disproportionately burden seniors, people with disabilities and low‑income residents who rely on absentee voting, and would amount to an effective poll tax where notaries charge fees.
Clerks warned that notary stamps could inadvertently mark or interfere with ballots inside envelopes, that requiring notarization would prevent absentee requests by email or fax, and that few municipalities could reasonably provide in‑home notary service at scale. The secretary flagged the need to modify statutory language on the affidavit form if the committee wanted to require a notarized verification.
The hearing ended with heavy opposition recorded online and in‑person; no committee vote is recorded in the transcript.
