Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Absentee Eligibility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Contentious hearing on HB 418: sponsors say constitution should govern absentee reasons; disability and clerks warn of disenfranchisement
Summary
Lawmakers heard hours of testimony on HB 418, a bill that would narrow reasons for absentee ballots and, its sponsor said, restore control of eligibility to the state constitution.
Representative John Sellers introduced HB 418 as an effort to return the determination of absentee reasons to voters and to the constitution. Sellers said the state constitution historically specified only two reasons (absent from the town or physical disability) and that expansions in statute had created an expanding list of reasons best decided by the people through constitutional amendment.
Multiple witnesses, including Kristen Evans of ABLE New Hampshire, the New Hampshire City and Town Clerks Association (represented by Joan Darje), the League of Women Voters and AARP, urged rejection of the bill. They said the bill would narrow eligibility by eliminating reasons such as work conflicts, caregiving responsibilities, religious observance and weather‑related concerns and would therefore disproportionately affect seniors, caregivers, people with disabilities and working families. The New Hampshire Commission on Aging provided data on falls and weather‑related risk cited as rationale to keep weather exceptions.
City and town clerks warned practical administrative consequences: removing common reasons harms voters who want to request absentee ballots for legitimate, everyday reasons and creates confusion at the clerk’s counter. ABLE New Hampshire said the bill would stigmatize and isolate voters with disabilities by forcing them to disclose medical conditions to get a ballot. Open Democracy and other voting rights groups said the measure would suppress turnout in communities where residents hold inflexible work schedules or caregiving duties.
Several speakers argued that the state constitution does not create an absolute ceiling on absentee reasons, pointing to the historical record and to past amendments; others said changing constitution would be the appropriate route if lawmakers want to re‑set eligibility. Committee members asked clerks, advocates and the secretary of state about implementation, enforcement and precedents from other states.
No committee final action appears in the transcript. The bill drew substantial public turnout and an online response heavily opposed to the proposed changes.
