What some see as a common-sense law requiring New Hampshire residents to confirm their identity before voting, others say is the latest in a string of barriers to voting rights and accessibility.

Gov. Chris Sununu must decide whether to veto or allow HB 1569 to become law, which would repeal the option for first-time voter affidavits, which provide exceptions and leniency for proving identity at the polls. 

The bill sponsored by Rep. Bob Lynn, a Windham Republican, poses what he believes is a reasonable ask: that people come prepared and ready to prove their citizenship, domicile, identity and age when registering to vote.

“If you want to vote, you have to take some responsibility,” Lynn said. “You have to find out what the requirements are to vote and make a plan, so to speak, to make sure that you comply with those requirements.”

Voting rights advocates say the bill is too restrictive and will disproportionately impact people from vulnerable populations.

Under current New Hampshire law, people who aren’t yet registered to vote can cast their ballot on election day without proving their eligibility. They can sign an affidavit listing their information; then, the secretary of state’s office will follow up with a letter in the mail to verify that information.

New Hampshire has same-day registration, so people can still sign up to vote on election day, but under this law they won’t be allowed to do so without proper documentation.

In past years, New Hampshire has received thousands of votes via the affidavit workaround, which Lynn said can be problematic. In 2012, for example, the attorney general’s office investigated more than 20,000 voter affidavits. Of those 20,000, about 4,400 voters either couldn’t be reached by mail or didn’t return the required information to the government. That investigation into potentially fraudulent votes was later abandoned by the AG’s office due to a lack of manpower. Lynn referenced occurrences like this one as part of his reasoning for the bill.

“That, it seems to me, raises a real question about, did those persons legitimately vote?” Lynn said. “Maybe some percentage of them really did legitimately vote and they just didn’t want to bother responding … but it seems to me that it’s at least a very realistic possibility that some number of those people were not qualified to vote.”

Lynn said he wants this law to stamp out potential voter fraud. Some civil rights advocates say it’s an unnecessary barrier.

Anthony Poore, president and CEO of the New Hampshire Center for Justice & Equity, said the legislation will negatively affect groups like first-time voters, students, residents new to the state, people of color, elderly voters, people who’ve changed their names and people who don’t have a stable address. His nonprofit organization aims to “elevate and empower” people of color in New Hampshire, according to its website.

This could be for a variety of reasons – some people keep their documents in a safe-deposit box or may not be able to find and gather them in time for same-day voting, Poore said. Others, like people who are housing-insecure, may be citizens who are eligible to vote but unable to confirm a place of residence. Poore said that’s unfair.

“Why would we make it any more difficult for people to participate in the process unless you want to actively ensure that some folks cannot participate in the process?” Poore said. “I cannot, for the life of me, understand why we want to impede people’s access to the ballot box.”

But Lynn said he just wants the law to make voting more intentional – in his mind, the only people it could keep from casting their ballot are those who decide to vote last-minute.

“You can’t be out having a couple of beers at lunchtime and decide at one o’clock, ‘Oh, gee, I think I’ll go vote,’ ” Lynn said. “Voting is a very important thing. It’s a fundamental constitutional right, and it’s not unreasonable to expect people to exercise some responsibility when they exercise that right.”

Tricky timing

If Sununu does sign the bill, it could cause some administrative confusion for the upcoming elections. Because there’s a 60-day period after the governor’s signature before it becomes law, it would go into effect after the Sep. 10 primary but before the general election in November. That would mean the primary would operate under the current rules – with affidavits – but the general would be governed under the new rule; hypothetically, some people who vote by affidavit in the primary may not be permitted to vote in the general unless they got their documents in order.

Asked about it by reporters during a press briefing last week, Sununu said he hadn’t made a decision yet on whether he’ll approve or veto the bill. His main concern was the timing issue – he would’ve had to sign it last Friday to enact the law in time for the primary election.

After conversing with the secretary of state and local election clerks, Sununu said he worries there wouldn’t be enough time to implement the law by training all election staff and poll workers for this fall’s elections.

“I don’t think the bill itself is bad, but I think the timing is very problematic, and that’s what I’m weighing right now,” Sununu said.

Charlotte Matherly is the statehouse reporter for the Concord Monitor and Monadnock Ledger-Transcript in partnership with Report for America. Follow her on X at @charmatherly.