Committee Hears Broad Opposition to Proposal Requiring ID and Notarization for Absentee Ballots

The House Election Law Committee heard more than three hours of testimony on Senate Bill 213 on Tuesday, with dozens of witnesses urging the panel to oppose the measure that would require extra documentation and notarization for voters who register or request absentee ballots.

Deputy Secretary of State Erin Hennessy told the committee the secretary’s office and municipal clerks already manage verification and that many of the bill’s new requirements would be difficult to implement for voters who cannot easily leave home.

"The requirement to scan, print and send documents creates serious barriers, particularly for voters with disabilities or limited access to technology," said Sarah Chouinard, voting rights program manager for the New Hampshire Campaign for Voting Rights. "Requiring notarization is simply not feasible for many voters who are homebound."

Representatives of the Disability Rights Center and ABLE New Hampshire testified that the bill would conflict with federal accessibility obligations created after litigation in 2020 that produced accessible absentee procedures. James Ziegra, an attorney with Disability Rights Center, said the existing digital-access process for voters with print disabilities would be undermined if notarization were required.

AARP New Hampshire and county leaders told the committee that nursing-home residents and people in county correctional facilities often lack ready access to birth certificates, passports or photo IDs and that county budgets would pick up the cost if staff had to obtain documents or pay notaries. Kate Horgan of the New Hampshire Association of Counties said county facilities often help facilitate absentee voting now and that additional costs would fall on counties.

Open Democracy’s Kaylee Estradio said the proposal would disproportionately affect younger voters, voters of color and the many people who change names after marriage. "Requiring a notarized signature is unduly burdensome," she said. "It will work to impose burdens on the most vulnerable in our communities, whom mail voting is intended to aid the most."

Several witnesses cited past litigation. Attorneys pointed the committee to the U.S. District Court litigation that struck down routine signature-matching practices in New Hampshire because untrained election workers can misapply signature-comparison standards.

Curtis Register, a Durham resident and military veteran, urged lawmakers not to add obstacles he said he would have faced while voting overseas. "I did not have to produce any additional proof of citizenship to buy a firearm," he said, contrasting other identity checks with the additional burdens in the bill.

Supporters of tighter documentation did not have a large presence at the hearing. The committee closed the public hearing after receiving hundreds of written and online submissions. Several members indicated to staff they wanted further study before taking any vote.

The committee did not take a vote on SB 213 at the hearing and recessed for additional work. Committee members said they would consider fiscal impacts, compliance with federal disability agreements and the operational burden on municipal clerks when deciding how to proceed.