Sen. James Gray proposes using DMV and vital records to verify voter qualifications; clerks and advocates warn of implementation, funding risks

At a public hearing of the Election Law Committee, Sen. James Gray introduced Amendment 18-07s, which would let election officials use state data sources such as the Department of Motor Vehicles records and vital records to verify a registrant’s citizenship, age and domicile when those records already exist.

Gray said the amendment is not intended to “take over providing the proof that a voter needs — citizenship, domicile, identity and age,” but to let officials use records the state already holds to confirm information when available. “If we’ve got the record, why shouldn’t we use those records?” he told the committee.

Supporters and voting-rights advocates told the committee the idea could make registration easier for some voters but urged careful drafting and funding. Liz Tentarelli, president of the Nonpartisan League of Women Voters of New Hampshire, said she backed the amendment’s intent but worried that, without clear implementation and funding, city elections in the fall — where many voters register same day — could see large numbers turned away if database connections fail. “I’m worried that if people…believe that they can go in without…documents and then we can’t connect them to these databases…it will be too late for them to register,” Tentarelli said.

Joan Darje, president of the New Hampshire City and Town Clerks Association, told the committee clerks welcome additional ways to qualify voters but flagged special challenges: older marriage records not in the state vital records system (pre-1959) and polling places whose checklist supervisors are offline. The clerks asked for clearer operational guidance and access methods that would work where internet is limited.

Mackenzie Taylor, director of the New Hampshire Campaign for Voting Rights, said her organization documented at least 114 voters turned away this year, most for lack of proof of citizenship. Taylor supported connecting systems where feasible but recommended retaining affidavits unless and until the implementation details — offline access, integration with the voter file, and funding for programming and equipment — are resolved.

Other witnesses raised additional operational concerns. Bob Perry warned that ongoing reductions at the Social Security Administration could affect the reliability of federal data the amendment would rely on. Olivia Zink, executive director of Open Democracy, urged clearer statutory language in multiple places (for example, whether the statute means “eligible voters” vs. “voters’ eligibility”) and asked the committee to clarify who would enter data into the voter database and who would have access.

Committee members pressed for specific drafting fixes during the hearing. Several senators asked the sponsor and the Secretary of State’s office to clarify language that currently says access to data “shall not relieve the applicant of the responsibility to provide appropriate proof of voter qualifications” and to explicitly permit the Secretary of State to choose the practical method of access (tablet, phone call, internet) so local polling places without reliable internet would not be disadvantaged. The sponsor said the Secretary of State would determine the connection method.

Public commenters described practical examples of how the systems could break down. Andrew Harmon, a New Hampton resident who said he had trouble updating his registration after a move, told the committee that intermittent internet access and other break points would need to be identified and resolved before the proposal is rolled out statewide.

Committee staff and the Secretary of State’s office said they could adjust statutory wording to address concerns raised in testimony — for example, adding the words “previously or currently registered” in certain lines so persons who had not been active registrants for some years aren’t forced to re-prove qualifications — but they also warned that some implementation details (programming costs, whether a nightly downloadable database or live lookups would be used) will affect local budgets and operations.

The hearing closed without a committee vote on the amendment. Committee members directed staff and the sponsor to consider the drafting and funding questions raised by witnesses and by the Secretary of State’s office before further action.