Senate committee hears broad testimony on bill to invalidate out‑of‑state licenses held by undocumented people

Sen. Bill Gannon, sponsor of Senate Bill 13, told the Judiciary Committee the bill would bar New Hampshire from recognizing driver’s licenses issued by other jurisdictions to people who cannot show lawful presence in the United States. “The point of this bill is that allowing illegal aliens to drive on New Hampshire roads should be made by the State of New Hampshire,” Gannon said in opening remarks.

The bill would direct New Hampshire not to accept out‑of‑state licenses that were issued exclusively to people who lack lawful immigration status. Proponents framed the measure as a public‑safety and sovereignty step; opponents said it risks racial profiling, creates technical and fiscal hurdles for the DMV and would reduce road safety by discouraging licensing and insurance.

DMV officials told the committee the department offered informational testimony and raised technical concerns. John Marasco, director of the New Hampshire Division of Motor Vehicles, and Jennifer Bailey, assistant director, said only two states—Connecticut and Delaware—issue licenses that are visibly marked as limited to noncitizens, and most states issue standard licenses that do not segregate cardholders by immigration status. “There are best practices on the card standard… but at the end of the day, if states don’t have the same laws, which they don’t, they can make that call,” Marasco said, summarizing the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators’ guidance.

Marasco and Bailey told senators the bill’s current text would require the DMV to publish a list of jurisdictions that issue licenses exclusively to undocumented residents, but it does not create or fund a statewide enforcement database. Bailey said the agency did not prepare a fiscal note because “listing 2 jurisdictions on our website isn't a large pull for us” and added the bill contains no database requirement as written. Marasco and Bailey also raised doubts about whether other states would supply the immigration‑status detail the bill would need to make enforcement work: “If they don’t have it, we can’t receive it and put it in our database and track it,” Marasco said.

Proponents cited national statistics and past federal reports to argue the measure would reduce crime and protect communities. Sherry Rendell of the Federation for American Immigration Reform said the bill “will invalidate a driver's license issued to an individual who cannot provide documentation that he or she is lawfully present in the United States.” Rendell cited ICE and Department of Justice figures and argued that licenses can be used as broadly accepted forms of identification.

Opponents included immigrant‑rights and civil‑liberties organizations and private citizens who urged the committee to reject the measure. Grace Kondekke of the American Friends Service Committee, testifying for the New Hampshire Immigrant Rights Network, said the bill would “encourage local and state law enforcement to increase the risk of unlawful profiling” and harm families and the state economy. Gilles Bissonnette, legal director of the ACLU of New Hampshire, said it is “a pretty unusual concept” to treat a lawfully issued license as a criminal trigger simply because the holder crosses a border, and he warned of public‑safety tradeoffs if people without recognized licenses avoid interacting with police after collisions or crimes.

Committee members pressed the sponsor and witnesses on enforcement mechanics, the interstate driver‑license compact, and fiscal costs. Sen. Allshore noted New Hampshire’s high level of interstate travel with neighboring states and asked whether the bill would disrupt the Driver License Compact’s information sharing. Gannon referenced Florida’s similar law and said the state had not experienced harm to tourism; DMV staff and other witnesses replied that AAMVA had told them Florida remained a compact participant and that compacts set “best practices,” not identical requirements.

Questions also focused on how a New Hampshire officer would determine a motorist’s immigration status during a traffic stop and whether officers would rely on a database or investigators’ discretionary inquiries. “He’ll look at the database if he has reason to believe or you gave him legal reason to seek more information,” Gannon said. DMV staff emphasized they had not been directed to build a database and that any such system would require data feeds and interagency decisions.

Several witnesses flagged gaps in the bill’s definitions and potential consequences for people with lapsed or pending immigration status. ACLU legal counsel noted that being undocumented is often a civil violation rather than a criminal offense and cautioned against imposing criminal penalties on individuals who hold lawfully issued licenses from other states.

The hearing drew both organized advocacy and private testimony. David Trumbull, a resident, said available research shows licensed drivers are more likely to remain at crash scenes and that licensing can reduce hit‑and‑run collisions; he urged lawmakers to weigh those safety effects. Testimony closed without formal action; senators did not vote on the bill during the hearing.

The committee will consider the DMV’s operational questions, potential fiscal implications for any database or enforcement mechanism, and the legal interaction with interstate compact arrangements if members advance the bill to committee work sessions or amendment.