Committee reviews SB 222 to move state primary to June; Secretary of State raises timing and third‑party concerns

The Senate Election Law and Municipal Affairs Committee heard testimony on Senate Bill 222, which would move the state primary to June and shift related filing deadlines to March.

Tricia Malillo, Senate Majority Caucus director, introduced the measure on behalf of Senator Lang and said the bill “would move the primary to June” and would also “move all the election deadlines that are relative to the primary to March,” including the filing deadline and party‑affiliation registration deadlines.

Secretary of State David Scanlon told the panel he prefers an August primary date but outlined concerns about a June primary. He warned that a March filing window would fall during town‑meeting season and “compress the workload on local election officials,” particularly in towns, and could force changes to broader campaigning timelines. Scanlon also highlighted an administrative timing issue: third parties can currently begin collecting nomination papers after Jan. 1 and submit them on a schedule tied to the primary; a June primary would substantially shorten the signature‑collection window unless the legislature adjusts the nomination‑submission deadlines.

Kevin Khan, representing the New Hampshire Classic Liberal Party, echoed that point and cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s Anderson v. Celebrezze (1983) precedent, urging the committee to avoid creating an “unequal burden” on independent and newer parties. Khan recommended either tying the petitioning submission date to the general election or otherwise extending the petitioning window so third parties are not disadvantaged by an earlier primary.

Senators asked whether a straightforward statutory amendment (for example moving the third‑party nomination submission deadline to Aug. 1) could preserve ballot access while allowing an earlier primary; Secretary Scanlon said that would be one way to address the concern and offered suggested amendment language to preserve supervisors‑of‑checklist meeting opportunities before filing opens.

The committee discussed logistical amendments and timing tradeoffs. Committee members also flagged the potential impact on turnout and the state’s traditional town‑meeting calendar. At the end of the recorded hearing the committee continued consideration; the transcript states SB 222 was put “on hold” pending further work and possible amendment, and no final committee vote on SB 222 appears in the recorded session.

Ending: The Secretary of State and third‑party representatives asked the committee to address secondary statutory deadlines if the primary is moved to June; the committee left the bill under further consideration rather than issuing an immediate recommendation.