Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Voter Qualification topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Long hearing on proposed New Hampshire citizenship requirement draws constitutional questions
Summary
Rep. Bob Wherry’s HB 15‑20 would add a New Hampshire citizenship or durational residency requirement and an oath for voters; supporters say it addresses nonresident voting concerns, while opponents and the League of Women Voters raised constitutional and access concerns and cited a more than $2.5M fiscal note.
Representative Bob Wherry introduced HB 15‑20 as an attempt to clarify voter qualification by creating a New Hampshire citizenship concept and potential durational residency or oath requirement. He cited data presented in testimony alleging thousands used out‑of‑state driver licenses in same‑day registration (reference: 6,540 individuals in 2016) and argued some measures may help deter nonresident voting. He referenced Dunn v. Blumstein in explaining case law limits and noted a potential 30‑day durational residency window allowed under federal law.
Committee concerns and legal context: Members pressed the sponsor on constitutionality and scope. Multiple questioners asked whether the bill conflicts with the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment or federal statutes that limit durational residency requirements for presidential elections. Representative Wherry said he is open to amendments and that earlier case law allowed limited durational residency but struck down overly long requirements; he repeatedly said the bill could be adjusted to fit constitutional precedents.
Public testimony: The League of Women Voters’ Liz Tentarelli opposed mandates that would confuse or burden voters and emphasized that an oath can be misread as a pledge of allegiance; she called the fiscal note ($2.5M for education) unrealistic. Open Democracy’s Sarah Ortiz testified that HB 15‑20 would create new registration barriers, disproportionately affecting students, domestic‑violence survivors, and people who move frequently, and urged opposition. Several individual constituents and commenters raised constitutional and practical objections.
Practical questions and amendments: Committee members and witnesses debated how a state oath would be administered, whether the Secretary of State would issue a ‘citizenship card,’ and what counts as proof (birth certificates, state IDs, marriage certificates). Members suggested alternate options (30‑day durational residency, better DMV enforcement, clearer statutory definitions) and noted that the sponsor is receptive to changes. The hearing closed with no final vote; staff and sponsors are expected to consider clarifying amendments that reconcile voter access concerns with the sponsor’s intent to address perceived nonresident voting.
