Committee retains DMV notice bill after Department of Safety warns of operational costs and unclear enforcement role

The House Finance Committee’s Division II retained HB 133 after hearing testimony from the Department of Safety on Jan. 29 about operational challenges the bill would impose on the Division of Motor Vehicles. The bill would require the DMV to identify people who presented out-of-state driver’s licenses or IDs when voting, check whether those people obtained New Hampshire credentials within 60 days, and at 90 days send inquiries if they had not done so.

Why it matters: Department officials told the committee they lack both the automated systems and the staffing currently required to send and manually process the volume of correspondence the bill envisions. Department witnesses warned the proposed procedure could create a new volume of casework and public questions for an agency that issues credentials but does not administer elections.

What the department said: John Marasco, director in the Department of Safety, told the committee the governor’s draft included a $40,000 allocation for system updates but that the department expects a need for at least 1 additional staff position to conduct manual matching, vet ambiguous records and handle correspondence. “The bill calls for $40,000 allocated to us through the bill to for the system updates. I added a position needed,” Marasco said. The department also told lawmakers the fiscal note did not include postage costs for mailed notices.

Assistant Director Jennifer Bailey explained practical limits: the DMV can accept a spreadsheet from the Secretary of State and try to match names, birthdates and addresses, but imperfect matches (for example, common names) would require manual review. Bailey also said the department already sends a large volume of routine mail: “We do send out over a million pieces of correspondence every year,” she said, and the new notices would create an additional manual workload.

Committee members raised policy and constitutional concerns. Representative Hacken Phillips argued the bill could impose a practical cost on voters and said requiring some people to obtain a driver’s license — or to pay for a non-driver ID — to avoid a follow-up notice “feels like a reverse poll tax.” Members also asked whether the Secretary of State or Attorney General might be the more appropriate agency for residency enforcement or investigations; department witnesses said that voter-fraud or residency investigation referrals historically go to the Attorney General or to law enforcement and that the DMV ordinarily issues credentials and does not investigate voting records.

Operational details and clarifications: Department testimony said the bill would apply not only to voting events but potentially to other triggers (for instance, vehicle registration or tickets in some cases). The DMV noted some statutory carve-outs already exist: the state issues a free voter-identification card through town clerks for people who lack a license or ID, and the DMV charges $10 for a non-driver ID. Department officials said registration processes at some towns already require New Hampshire credentials, and that law enforcement may be the ultimate enforcement path for residency claims under current statute (RSA 263:35 was cited during the hearing).

Committee action and next steps: Representative Popovich moved to retain HB 133; the motion passed on a recorded vote, four yeas to three nays. The retention leaves the bill on the committee’s docket for additional work. Committee members asked the Department of Safety to provide more-detailed estimates of the number of notices the DMV would have to send in a given election cycle, a clarified fiscal note including postage and matching costs, and recommendations on whether the Secretary of State or another agency should send the correspondence.

Context and background: Department witnesses said the bill’s operational design triggers at the 90-day mark after a voter used an out-of-state credential and that, as written, the bill would not create enforcement “teeth” beyond notification. Marasco said some cases would simply end if there is no response to a mailed notice; the department interpreted the bill as requiring initial outreach and possible research, not mandatory removal of voter registration or other penalties.

Looking ahead: Lawmakers who voiced constitutional, privacy or workload concerns signaled they would either seek amendments that narrow the DMV’s role or ask the Secretary of State and Attorney General for guidance on enforcement and appropriate agency responsibilities. The Department of Safety agreed to return with detailed workload and cost estimates if the committee requests them.