E‑Verify bill draws divided business and chamber concerns; Labor Department neutral but flags enforcement steps

Senate Bill 177 would require New Hampshire employers with more than 25 employees to use the federal E‑Verify system to confirm work authorization for new hires, a legislative aide and several witnesses told the Senate Commerce Committee.

Joshua Shower, legislative aide for the bill sponsor, said E‑Verify compares employer I‑9 information with Social Security Administration and Department of Homeland Security records and alerts employers to mismatches; state mandates for E‑Verify exist in about two dozen states. Rep. Pam Brown, a co‑sponsor, said supporters regard the system as a sensible tool to reduce hiring of unauthorized workers and cited third‑party summaries describing how E‑Verify matches documents and deters document fraud.

The Department of Labor testified as neutral. General Counsel John Gerrigan and Deputy Commissioner Danielle Albert noted the department currently audits employers for I‑9 compliance and would still need to check employer records for proof of verification. They told the committee the department could enforce civil penalties included in the bill, but noted RSA 273:11(a) generally requires warning and correction periods before penalties unless a statute expressly exempts the enforcement from that umbrella; the bill as drafted does not exempt its penalties from that warning procedure. Albert also said the department frequently assesses civil penalties for I‑9 recordkeeping violations and that the department’s existing inspection and hearings infrastructure could likely handle related cases but that the total additional workload and costs are uncertain.

Business witnesses opposed the mandate. Allison Milioto of Blue Lion said many small employers already complete paper I‑9s and that requiring E‑Verify would add administrative steps, security and breach risks, and potential hiring delays. She also argued that employers who knowingly hire unauthorized workers are unlikely to be deterred by a state requirement. Peggy Gilmore of the Greater Nashua Chamber of Commerce said the Chamber supports employer choice rather than a state mandate.

Witnesses also pointed out limitations of E‑Verify: it verifies that the identity information entered into the system matches federal records, but it cannot confirm that the person physically presenting documents is the same individual tied to those records. Blue Lion and other witnesses gave examples of shared Social Security numbers or identity‑document misuse that can allow unauthorized workers to pass verification.

Committee members questioned enforcement, whether E‑Verify would reduce current I‑9 violations, and potential administrative costs for the Department of Labor. The Department said it would collect records demonstrating use of E‑Verify (for example, system printouts) during audits but could not predict whether the mandate would reduce violations. No committee vote was recorded at the hearing.