Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Absentee Voting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sponsor’s absentee-voting bill seeks 'more likely than not' standard; counties and advocates warn of burdens on nursing-home, jail and homebound voters
Summary
Senate Bill 213 would change absentee voting eligibility language and include a 'more likely than not' standard; county and advocacy testimony raised concerns about access, notary costs and verification for incarcerated and long-term care residents. Committee signaled changes may be needed and did not advance the bill at the hearing.
Senator James Gray presented a bill to the committee proposing changes to absentee voting eligibility language, including use of the "more likely than not" phrase to define certain circumstances for absentee eligibility.
Gray said the standard is a legal term that he believes is clearer for voters and clerks than existing language. The sponsor and some supporters argued the change would provide better guidance to applicants about when they qualify for an absentee ballot.
County officials and disability and voting-rights advocates pressed the committee on operational consequences. Kate Horgan, representing the New Hampshire Association of Counties, told the committee that county jails and county-run nursing homes house residents who are eligible to vote but may lack access to birth certificates or photo ID and therefore could be disadvantaged by new documentary requirements. Horgan suggested an amendment to allow a nursing-home administrator or a corrections superintendent (or their designee) to verify identity on behalf of residents.
Voter-advocacy witnesses, including Olivia Zink of Open Democracy and Michael O’Brien of America Votes, opposed stricter documentary requirements and notary mandates, saying they can suppress turnout among older voters, voters of color and homebound voters. O’Brien cited data from Kansas-style requirements elsewhere, noting that similar measures have blocked thousands of rightful registrations with minimal evidence of fraud.
Committee members acknowledged competing priorities: protecting the integrity of absentee ballots and preserving access for voters with limited mobility or documents. The committee did not adopt a final position on the bill at the hearing and indicated it would consider sponsor and stakeholder amendments addressing county and access concerns.
Votes at the hearing: none. The bill was held for further amendment and review.
