Committee hears bill to limit how far in advance absentee ballots can be requested

House Bill 288, which would limit requests for absentee ballots (except for UOCAVA voters) to no more than six months before an election, drew both support and opposition during a public hearing of the Senate Election Law and Municipal Affairs Committee.

Representative Bob Wherry, prime sponsor and a member of the House Election Law Committee, told the committee that review of requests before the November 2024 general election showed absentee ballots being requested “as early as August of 2023, roughly 15 months prior to the actual election,” and described many thousands of early requests across late 2023 and early 2024. He said the bill would “limit how far in advance an absentee ballot may be requested” and that the six‑month window is “a practical and reasonable limitation.”

Opponents, including Olivia Zink, executive director of Open Democracy, said the proposal would unduly burden some overseas and mobile voters who currently use longer lead times to receive full ballots. Zink noted that UOCAVA (Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act) procedures allow certain federal postcard requests beginning in January of an election year but that New Hampshire law and local practice can provide a full state ballot to many military and overseas voters. She gave examples — a deployed naval submariner, long‑term RV travelers and State Department employees who register while home at the clerk’s office — and said clerks “don't actually process it until they get the ballots” and that early request forms impose no work for clerks until processing time.

Representative Ross Berry, chair of the House Election Law Committee and a committee cosponsor, said there is currently no limit in state law and that, in theory, someone could request absentee ballots indefinitely. He said his analysis showed many early requests were sent to fixed locations such as retirement homes and that a six‑month cap is a reasonable cutoff. Berry told the committee the House approved the measure on party lines and that the committee vote was close.

Committee members asked about clerk workflows and the ElectionNet system used to record requests. Senator members noted clerks often do not enter applications into ElectionNet until roughly six months before an election; proponents and opponents each said they were aware of that operational constraint. The Secretary of State was not recorded as offering operational objections at the hearing.

At the committee's later consideration the bill was discussed again and committee members indicated support. A voice vote was recorded moving the bill forward and the committee placed the bill on consent for passage.

The hearing record lists public sign‑in in opposition and online signups showing more opposed than in support.

Votes and formal actions recorded in committee proceedings show the bill moved out of committee by voice vote and was placed on the consent calendar.