This appears to be a waste of resources by proposing a solution to a nonexistent problems. One already has to prove one's citizenship in order to register to vote.
HB1062
House · 2026 sessionRepublicanSigned into lawAuditing voters' citizenship status
AIAuthorizes the secretary of state to conduct random, statistically sound audits of the citizenship qualifications of registered voters who used a qualified voter affidavit, publish findings, and refer suspected noncitizens to the attorney general.
authorizing the secretary of state to conduct random audits of the citizenship qualification of registered voters.
Status
Signed into law · July 16, 2026- ✓Introduced
- ✓House
- ✓Senate
- ✓Governor
- ✓Law
Division of testimony
1,021 submissionsArgument digest · AI-generated
from 362 of 362 written submissionsHB1062 would authorize the Secretary of State to conduct random audits of registered voters' citizenship status using government and private databases. The overwhelming majority of submitted testimony opposes the bill, arguing New Hampshire has no documented voter-fraud problem and that audits would intimidate voters, risk wrongful disenfranchisement, and waste public resources, while a small number of supporters see the audits as a reasonable safeguard for election integrity.
- Audits deter fraud and strengthen election integritySupport4 of 362 reviewed
Supporters argue that periodic citizenship audits are a reasonable safeguard that deters ineligible voting and reinforces public confidence in election integrity, even in the absence of proven widespread fraud.
“It would help to ensure election integrity. Random audits deter others from attempting to vote when they are not qualified.”
— Anonymous Resident, Derry · #601122 — read full submission →
“Anything we can do to deter fraud or even the appearance of fraud in our elections should have no opposition. It’s common sense.”
— Rachel Paluch, Alton · #595797 — read full submission →
- No evidence of a voter-fraud problem; bill spreads fear and distrustOppose73 of 362 reviewed
Opponents overwhelmingly argue that New Hampshire has no documented pattern of non-citizen voting, calling the bill a solution in search of a problem that would spread fear, confusion, and distrust rather than improve election security.
“This bill solves a problem that does not exist in New Hampshire There is no evidence of widespread non-citizen voting in NH. None.”
— bonnie brunuo, hollis · #591330 — read full submission →
“Random ‘audits’ of citizenship don't improve security—they spread fear, confusion, and distrust.”
— Elizabeth A Trought, Laconia · #594016 — read full submission →
- Redundant with existing citizenship verification at registrationOppose25 of 362 reviewed
Opponents, including current and former election officials, argue voters already must prove citizenship when they register, so a second layer of random audits duplicates safeguards that already work well.
“The State of New Hampshire already has a process in place to identify fraudulent voters. There is no reason to burden the citizens, local Town Offices, and the State of New Hampshire with this new layer of voter registration.”
— Susan Tochterman, Keene · #592233 — read full submission →
“Registrars are VERY careful in checking the citizenship documents before adding names to the voter list.”
— Joanna Wicklein, Durham · #601483 — read full submission →
- Risk of wrongfully disenfranchising eligible citizensOppose14 of 362 reviewed
Opponents warn that database errors, outdated records, or a lack of readily available documents like a birth certificate or passport could cause eligible citizens to be wrongly flagged, with particular concern for naturalized citizens and women whose names changed through marriage.
“Random audits could wrongly target U.S. citizens due to database errors, name similarities, outdated records, or inconsistent data between government and private sources.”
— Michelle Lawrence, Henniker · #598614 — read full submission →
“For the many natural born eligible voters without a passport, proving citizenship will likely require an original birth certificate. Many will not have one and the process for acquiring one could be burdensome and time consuming.”
— Steven Cole, Portsmouth · #593477 — read full submission →
- Vague 'random' process invites discriminatory or political targetingOppose11 of 362 reviewed
Opponents argue the bill does not define how audits would be randomly selected, creating an opening for the Secretary of State to target voters by race, name, party, or political district.
“When voters know they can be audited after the fact, checked against private databases they did not consent to and referred to the Attorney General, voters will self-select out….that is the point of this bill.”
— bonnie brunuo, hollis · #591330 — read full submission →
“For example, I as a 70+year old white haired white woman will most likely not be checked.”
— Dorothy Bauer, Antrim · #599687 — read full submission →
- Wastes taxpayer money and burdens election officialsOppose30 of 362 reviewed
Opponents argue the audits would create unfunded administrative work for the Secretary of State and local clerks and divert limited public resources toward a problem they say doesn't exist.
“There is no need for this bill. NH does not have a voter fraud problem. Unnecessary work and money will be needed to oversee this bill. A waste of legislative time.”
— Judith Ackerson, Franklin · #598157 — read full submission →
“So why are we putting more busy work on the secretary of state's desk? More hours -> more workers for a position that won't do anything -> higher taxes”
— Sam Jackson, Keene · #599321 — read full submission →
- Privacy concerns over sharing voter data with databasesOppose18 of 362 reviewed
Opponents object to cross-referencing voter information against government and private databases, expressing concern that personal data could be mishandled, hacked, or misused.
“I do not want my voting information cross referenced with another government database. We don’t need Big Brother misusing personal information, like DOGE did with social security data.”
— Tracey Fulmer, Amherst · #606017 — read full submission →
“I do NOT want NH voting information shared in this way--I do not want this information shared where it may be hacked or misused.”
— Suzanne Brown, Etna · #605150 — read full submission →
- Raises constitutional due-process and search concernsOppose14 of 362 reviewed
Some opponents argue random post-registration audits without individualized cause could violate constitutional protections such as due process, equal protection, or protection against unreasonable searches.
“U.S. and NH elections are secure. This violates the Fourteenth Amendment - which prohibits states from creating laws or requirements that unfairly burden or discriminate against certain groups of people”
— Melanie Kasparian, Hudson · #591577 — read full submission →
“almost certainly violates the constitutional protections against unreasonable searches”
— David Watt, East Kingston · #597573 — read full submission →
Generated by claude-sonnet-5 (claude code agent) on Jul 20, 2026. Quotes are verbatim excerpts, verified against the cited submission before publication. Summaries are AI interpretation of the record, not part of it.
There is no evidence of widespread non-citizen voting in New Hampshire. HB 1062 fuels misinformation and undermines trust instead of improving election security.
NH does not have a problem with non-citizens voting. This law assumes that there is a problems.
There is no evidence of widespread non-citizen voting in New Hampshire. This doesn't create safety, only fear.
New Hampshire does not have a voter fraud problem. This is a convenient excuse to further disenfranchise voters, and to erode the trust of citizens in the electoral process . This bill pulls time, attention, and resources away from the issues really facing New Hampshire voters like increasing ease of access, clarity, and improving overall system efficiency..
NH doesn't have a vote fraud problem. This bill would allow the Secretary of State to create the appearance of a problem thereby undermining trust in our elections. The Secretary of State could also target individuals or groups for auditing. All registered voters have already been proven to be citizens, so these bogus audits would generate fear and discourage voting.
This bill will deny us as citizens, our right to privacy. It is against the Bill of Rights!
This Bill spreads distrust of elections by authorizing random citizenship audits after voters are already registered.despite no evidence of voter fraud. NH does not have a voter fraud problem. This bill pretends we do - and that lie matters because it . casts suspicion on eligible voters and fuels conspiracy theories instead of strengthening trust in elections. Random “audits” of citizenship don’t improve security — they spread fear, confusion, and distrust. At a time when election laws are already changing rapidly, this bill pulls attention and resources away from what actually helps voters: education, clarity, and smooth elections. This is not about integrity. It’s about discouraging and harrassing eligible voters who may be wrongly questioned or flagged and Communities already facing barriers to participation. I strongly oppose this! KimRosenfield
I strongly oppose this bill. HB 1062 spreads fear by authorizing random citizenship audits despite no evidence of voter fraud.
I do not want to live in a "papers please" state. We already have methods to challenge voters that do not invade the privacy of all Granite State residents randomly; we should stick to those. In the Live Free or Die state, it is wildly inappropriate to even be considering something like this. Those who proposed this bill would do well to reevaluate what it means to live in a free country.
I do not want my voting information cross referenced with another government database. We don’t need Big Brother misusing personal information, like DOGE did with social security data. Bottom line is that I no longer trust ANY form of government to keep my personal data safe and used solely for the purpose intended when I provided the information. The theory that non citizens are improperly voting has already been debunked by other states that have performed this specific analysis. Louisiana is one example.
This bill is merely intended to perpetuate the tired myth of voter fraud. It is counterproductive and divisive -- "qualities" that too many embrace. As a former legislator, I know that working together to solve real problems, while challenging, can be very gratifying. I urge the sponsors of this legislation to choose that path and try to leave a better legacy.
Keep my personal data personal. No reason for public or private companies to have access to any of this. As a registered voter, I have the right to vote without anyone looking over my shoulder.
. This is an assault on our privacy and rights as voters.
I oppose this bill because I do not want my information shared. I’m fearful of what someone would do with it. Please vote No.
I oppose sharing our personal identifying data!!
This bill is RIDICULOUS and meant to disinfranchise voters for made up bullsit reasons about "citizenship"...How about working to ENHANCE THE LIVES OF CITIZENS INSTEAD OF STEAL THEIR RIGHTS!!!
I oppose this bill because I think that random "audits" of citizenship don't improve security—they spread fear, confusion, and distrust.
This bill gives the Secretary of State broad authority to conduct random, (at will), audits of voters’ citizenship status after they have already become registered to vote via current process. The assumption is that the state needs this power and should expend resources to overcome the problem of non-citizens illegally obtaining the right to vote. New Hampshire does not have a voter fraud problem and no evidence has been presented to document that such a problem does exist. By its proposal, this bill assumes that we do have such a problem that requires not deliberate but "random" action. Furthermore, in spite of the fact that no data has been cited, there are no suggested criteria by which to assess when such measures should trigger a legitimate need to audit. In the absence of evidence, one is forced to conclude that this is not about voter integrity. It’s about instituting an atmosphere of intimidation in the absence of a problem.
I do NOT want NH voting information shared in this way--I do not want this information shared where it may be hacked or misused. Voting information should be personal and confidential for all NH people.
I have not seen or heard evidence that NH has a voter fraud problem. So why are there so many bills trying to fix a problem that does not exist? I suspect the goal is to sow seeds of doubt about the security and legitimacy of our elections. If your side loses, it must be voter fraud. We should be proud of all the citizens, many of them volunteers, who work so hard to make sure our elections run smoothly. But rather than showing gratitude for their time and integrity, you introduce bills like this one that aims to undermine the public’s confidence in our elections.
The right to vote is the core of our democracy, and I believe that by changing the rules around registration like this you will silence those who are putting in the hard work. Currently with how state registers a person for a same day voter registration is crucial, we all have busier lives trying to keep up with the requirements of the day to day. This allows those who work the hardest to let our voices be heard in case we weren't able to take time away from our jobs to register. I've lived in New Hampshire all of my life and this was one of the greatest points of pride when I first started to vote because it made it accessible to me. We already have the highest level of restrictions of any other state when it comes to voting and this is not doing anything to help solve the problem but hinder everyday residents. There are no NH Citizens only US citizens. I oppose this bill
Unconstitutional
There is no evidence of widespread non-citizen voting in New Hampshire. HB 1062 fuels misinformation and undermines trust instead of improving election security.
Fearmongering when there is no evidence of widespread votor fraud is immoral and below the standards expected of all of you. I believe if passed that the folks targeted for confirmation of eligibility would be those that look different from most of NH- ie minorities. Our election volunteers are wonderful, but untrained. This is not about integrity. It’s about keeping fear alive.HB 1062 casts suspicion on eligible voters and fuels conspiracy theories instead of strengthening trust in elections.