Subcommittee weighs proof-of-citizenship, residency rules and absentee verification as legal precedents loom

The Election Law Subcommittee met on Feb. 21 to review legal precedent and proposed changes to voter registration rules, focusing on how domicile and residency are defined, what documentation should be required to prove U.S. citizenship, and how absentee ballots are verified.

Chair of the subcommittee opened the session by saying the panel’s mission: “this bipartisan subcommittee is tasked with evaluating, consolidating, and reconciling various 20 25 house bills concerning voter registration and the impacts of nonresident voting.” The panel heard testimony from Secretary of State Scanlon and from Henry Klementowicz of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire about court decisions and practical effects of recent statutory changes.

Why it matters: Subcommittee members said they are balancing two competing interests—ensuring secure, lawful elections and avoiding undue burdens that would prevent eligible voters from casting ballots. The discussion centered on whether requirements for documentary proof of citizenship (such as a birth certificate, passport, or naturalization papers) and verification processes for absentee ballots are proportionate to the risks the laws are meant to address.

Legal precedent and residency/domicile. Henry Klementowicz, deputy legal director at the ACLU of New Hampshire, reviewed court history the subcommittee must consider and warned that statutory language has created confusion. Klementowicz said the legislature’s choice to use the word “domicile” rather than “resident” produced unnecessary ambiguity: “I wish that hadn't happened because it just unnecessarily caused confusion.” He summarized the New Hampshire Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on HB1264 and the certified question in Casey v. Secretary of State, explaining that the courts have in recent years treated domicile and residency as effectively aligned for voting purposes, but that advisory opinions and certified questions do not always resolve disputed facts for future litigation.

Proof of citizenship and proposed bills. Members reviewed House Bill 217 (absentee registration affidavit language) and discussed a separate proposal that would restore pre-HB1569 rules on documentary proof of citizenship (the sponsor said HB385 would repeal HB1569 and return prior statutory language). The subcommittee discussed a draft approach in which local clerks or the Secretary of State could attempt electronic verification of citizenship for applicants who cannot immediately produce documentary proof, with provisions for indigent applicants to receive vouchers to obtain birth certificates. Committee members expressed concerns about: (1) operational capacity to verify citizenship on election day, (2) whether documentary requirements would effectively end same-day registration, and (3) the real-world incidence of noncitizen voting versus the burden placed on lawful voters.

Absentee ballots and signature verification. Both the secretary’s office and the ACLU described how absentee procedures had previously relied on moderators to compare signatures on applications and affidavit envelopes. Klementowicz reviewed the litigation that led to enjoining that signature-comparison practice, noting moderating officials are not handwriting experts and the process was applied unevenly. The secretary said there is no current statutory requirement that voters send copies of photo ID with absentee requests and that the absentee processes rely on applications, affidavit envelopes, and moderators’ procedures that have changed after litigation and the pandemic.

Operational notes and data questions. Secretary Scanlon told the subcommittee that almost all absentee-ballot applications are received and processed by local town or city clerks (the Secretary of State’s office forwards misdirected applications to the appropriate clerk). The attorney general’s office prosecutes election-related criminal matters; Scanlon said prosecutions are rare—“less than a handful every election”—and the state has not found evidence of organized, widespread criminal voting schemes in New Hampshire. Members asked the secretary’s office to provide data on states that require documentary proof of citizenship and on whether local officials have enough time and capacity to verify documents on or shortly after election day.

Next steps. The subcommittee asked the research staff to compile (1) which states require documentary proof of citizenship and what those states require, (2) relevant court decisions, and (3) practical operational issues around verifying citizenship and absentee procedures. Members also requested that the subcommittee invite the Attorney General’s elections or election-law unit to answer questions about prosecutions, enforcement resources and common types of investigations. The subcommittee scheduled follow-up working sessions and asked members to hold Fridays 9:30–12:30 for additional meetings ahead of the March 14 report deadline.

The panel did not take any formal votes during the Feb. 21 working session; members said they will continue deliberations and return with recommendations to the full Election Law Committee.