Broad debate in Election Law Committee pits no‑excuse absentee amendment against tighter limits and new ID/notary proposals

The House Election Law Committee heard hours of testimony Monday on a cluster of measures affecting absentee voting — from a proposed constitutional amendment to allow no‑excuse absentee ballots to bills that would narrow reasons for mail voting, change how and when ballots are delivered or opened, and add identification or notarization requirements to absentee requests.

Supporters of expanding absentee access said the state should follow the majority of other states and let voters request absentee ballots without giving a reason. Opponents warned that loosening requirements without changes to verification could create security gaps; other speakers opposed proposed notary/ID steps as a practical and equity problem for seniors, people with disabilities and homebound voters.

The debate opened with testimony on CACR 5, a constitutional amendment offered by Representative Connie Lane that would let New Hampshire voters receive an absentee ballot without providing a reason. "The purpose is to improve access for voters in New Hampshire so that they will have the same ability to choose as 37 other states allow," Lane said. Secretary of State David Scanlon told the committee that New Hampshire's single‑day, in‑person system historically supported high voter confidence but warned that widening convenience without accounting for verification creates a tension between access and security.

Why it matters: New Hampshire election officials and advocacy groups framed the issue as a balance of two goals — making voting usable for people who legitimately cannot be at the polls (seniors, people with disabilities, caregivers, long‑shift workers and people who travel) while preserving public confidence in results. Committee witnesses cited major changes after 2020: absentee voting statewide rose from about 9% historically to roughly 30% in 2020, and remained well above pre‑pandemic levels in subsequent high‑turnout elections.

What proponents said: ABLE New Hampshire and disability groups urged CACR 5, saying current limited reasons for absentee ballots place an undue burden on people with disabilities. "For individuals with disabilities, absentee voting is often the most reliable and accessible means of participating in elections," ABLE policy director Kristen Evans said. The ACLU's deputy legal director Henry Klimentowicz and Open Democracy's witnesses said expanded absentee access reduced lines and improved participation without producing evidence of widespread fraud.

What opponents said: Several speakers asked that any expansion include stronger verification. David Scanlon, New Hampshire's secretary of state, said the easier it is to vote the more careful officials must be to ensure voters are qualified. A number of witnesses and Representative John Sellers, who introduced HB 418 (a bill to limit reasons for absentee ballots and to send changes to voters rather than legislate them), argued the New Hampshire Constitution (Part I, Article 11) and existing statutes set a historical floor that should not be altered by statute alone.

Related bills and operational fixes: The committee also heard several bills addressing mechanics and verification. - HB 136 (Representative Jim Maggiore) would extend the statutory cutoff for town clerks to accept hand‑delivered absentee ballots from 5 p.m. to the close of polls. Town clerks and advocates said the change would prevent narrow, arbitrary disenfranchisement when a voter arrives minutes past 5 p.m.; some clerks recommended a short buffer (for example 30 minutes) to allow logistical handling. - HB 344 / HB 3 44 (preprocessing absentee ballots): witnesses including moderators from larger towns described the practice used during 2020 to open outer absentee envelopes and check affidavits a week before the election. Supporters said preprocessing (opening outer envelopes to confirm signatures/affidavits but not removing the inner ballot) lets officials and voters correct curable defects before election day and reduces overnight counting delays. Several town moderators said preprocessing can be conducted publicly and securely; Open Democracy and voting rights organizations urged the committee to allow preprocessing for all elections. - HB 6 08 and HB 6 86 (ID / notarization proposals): Representative Kelly Potenza and others introduced bills that would require a color copy of government photo ID and notarization or a printed witness statement on the absentee application. These measures drew strong opposition from disability advocates, the League of Women Voters, municipal clerks and AARP. Opponents said requiring notaries or color copies imposes cost, logistical barriers and a de facto poll tax for homebound or low‑income voters. Town clerks warned that adding notarization removes email/fax as usable delivery methods and could force many ballots to be rejected.

Officials and practical concerns: Town clerks and moderators testified repeatedly about operational tradeoffs: when lines exceed an hour or two, voters leave without voting, and volunteer poll workers face dangerously long shifts. Moderators from Milford, Derry, Londonderry and Nashua described that counting deadlines can push staff into the early morning. Several clerks and moderators supported preprocessing and more flexible delivery deadlines to reduce those pressures. Clerks also pointed to the Secretary of State's guidance and the need for clear statutory language if the committee wants to change affidavit or witnessing rules.

Committee action during the meeting: The committee conducted executive business on several unrelated items during the session (roll‑call votes recorded during executive sessions). Those outcomes, as recorded during the meeting, included votes on bills the committee considered in executive session: House Bill 2 61 (election audits) — reported out ought to pass (committee vote recorded in session); House Bill 107 — reported out (10‑7); House Bill 336 (placement of political advertisements) — voted inexpedient to legislate (17‑0); House Bill 48 (study committee on 04/25 ballot law commission violations) — inexpedient to legislate (16‑1); House Bill 626 (vulnerability disclosure program, amended) — ought to pass as amended (17‑0) and placed on the consent calendar; House Bill 327 (filing for office procedures, amended) — ought to pass as amended (17‑0); House Bill 474 (counting of write‑in votes / second witness) — reported (10‑7); House Bill 630 (deepfake/misleading political material) — inexpedient to legislate (10‑7); and CACR 4 (retain) — retained (10‑7).

What the record shows and what it does not: Witnesses on both sides repeatedly said they had not seen evidence of organized, widespread absentee fraud in other states. Proponents of expanded access noted many states run no‑excuse absentee systems without systemic problems. Opponents pointed to isolated administrative problems and urged stronger verification steps. No bill requiring state‑level proof of citizenship or other document collection for every absentee request was adopted at this hearing; several such proposals were opposed by disability and senior advocates.

Outlook: The committee's record shows continued division. CACR 5 (no‑excuse absentee) drew substantial public support online and in person; opponents pushed process and constitutional arguments. Multiple bills aimed to address operational impacts — some (preprocessing, delivery‑deadline changes) won broad support from clerks and moderators; others (ID/notarization) drew strong opposition from senior, disability and municipal officials as disproportionate burdens. The committee scheduled or completed executive work on several related and unrelated bills; several measures were moved to the consent calendar or were voted inexpedient to legislate during the session.

Ending note: The committee heard testimony from town clerks, moderators, voting‑rights advocates, disability and senior groups, the Secretary of State, and municipal associations. Those speakers reflected a common theme: New Hampshire faces choices about how to preserve both access and confidence. Several procedural proposals — preprocessing and modest adjustments to delivery and processing windows — won repeated praise as ways to reduce long lines and late‑night counts without limiting voter access. More intrusive verification steps such as notarization and mandatory color‑ID copies remain controversial and drew widespread opposition from disability, senior and municipal groups.