Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Hb69 Everify topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears competing testimony on bill to require statewide use of E‑Verify
Summary
Representative Saborin DeChuanier introduced HB 69 to require employers to use USCIS E‑Verify. Supporters called it pro‑worker; opponents and business groups warned about false positives, cost and misuse. The Department of Labor suggested technical clarifications about recordkeeping.
House Bill 69, which would require New Hampshire employers to use the federal E‑Verify system to confirm work authorization, drew mixed testimony at a Labor Committee hearing.
Representative Saborin DeChuanier introduced the bill as a pro‑worker measure meant to formalize use of the free federal E‑Verify system. "This is a pro worker bill," he said during the introduction.
Opponents, including Christine Wellington (testifying as an individual and on behalf of the New Hampshire Immigrants Rights Network) told the committee that E‑Verify is widely underused, produces false positives and can impose costs and legal risks on small employers. Wellington provided enrollment figures and said a small share of U.S. businesses use the federal system: she cited about 1.3 million enrolled employers nationwide and approximately 26,100 enrolled in New Hampshire, while estimating roughly 40,000 businesses in the state overall. "It doesn't seem to be something that's business friendly much less employer friendly," Wellington said.
Nach Grama of the Business and Industry Association opposed a mandate for all employers, saying existing law already requires documentation of eligibility (the I‑9 process) and voluntary E‑Verify use preserves employer flexibility. "We do not believe that this legislation is necessary at this time," Grama said.
The Department of Labor reviewed the draft language and urged clarity on recordkeeping: DOL Deputy Commissioner Danielle Albert asked the committee to specify whether the employer must retain the I‑9 documents, an E‑Verify response printout, or both. "As phrased and in conjunction with the added language, it's not all that clear what documentation is being referred to," Albert said.
Proponents and opponents also debated practical issues such as small‑employer capacity to use E‑Verify, federal responses to mismatches, the required notice and re‑verification steps when a person receives a Tentative Nonconfirmation, and whether enforcement penalties should apply. No committee action was taken at the hearing; departments and stakeholders are expected to supply follow‑up material if the bill advances.
