Today we are in a climate where US citizenship has become a charged topic, and US citizens must carry papers proving citizenship or fear being detained from their jobs, churches, families. Making a push at the NH State level to create and require ANOTHER new proof of citizenship that NH residents must obtain and carry around is a highly unusual and provocative move. Beyond establishing an additional barrier between US citizens and their voting rights, I cannot fathom what value this provides to the great state of NH and its wonderful people. I suspect that implementation costs of "$2.5M" are widely underestimated, and ongoing administrative costs do not appear to be considered at all. This is fiscally irresponsible. But the real costs will be the new layers of red tape that will stand between NH residents and their freedoms and rights as US citizens.
HB1520
House · 2026 sessionRepublicanKilled in HouseNew Hampshire citizenship cards for voting
AIDefines New Hampshire and United States citizenship for voting purposes, requires the secretary of state to issue New Hampshire citizenship cards, and requires voters to present proof of state citizenship when registering.
defining citizenship for the purposes of voting.
Status
Killed in the House — Inexpedient to Legislate · February 19, 2026- ✓Introduced
- ✕House
- Senate
- Governor
- Law
Division of testimony
2,451 submissionsArgument digest · AI-generated
from 207 of 1,285 written submissionsHB1520 would create a new state-level "New Hampshire citizenship" status for voting purposes, requiring voters not born in the state to obtain a citizenship card and take an oath of allegiance to New Hampshire, in addition to existing proof of U.S. citizenship and residency. The overwhelming majority of testimony opposes the bill, arguing it is unconstitutional, addresses a voter-fraud problem that barely exists, would cost millions of taxpayer dollars, and would burden or disenfranchise long-time residents, students, military families, and others who were not born in New Hampshire; a small number of supporters call it a common-sense confirmation that only legal citizens and residents vote.
- Only citizens should be able to voteSupport4 of 207 reviewed
Supporters argue it is common sense to require proof of citizenship and residency before someone can vote, and view opposition to the bill as effectively defending ineligible voting.
“It's an absolute no brainer that people should have to prove they are legal citizens and residents of New Hampshire in order to vote in our election.”
— Andrew Giaquinta, Brentwood · #581041 — read full submission →
“I support this bill because only US and NH citizens should be allowed to vote in our elections.”
— Daniel Gialanella, Chester · #580273 — read full submission →
“I absolutely positively support this bill. Only American citizens should be able to vote in our elections.”
— Tina Hood, New Ipswich · #582583 — read full submission →
- Obtaining ID is easy and supports secure electionsSupport1 of 207 reviewed
A supporter argues that obtaining valid identification is a routine requirement for many everyday activities and that requiring it for voting helps ensure elections are secure.
- Oath of allegiance is authoritarian and un-AmericanOppose71 of 207 reviewed
Opponents describe the required loyalty oath to the state as Orwellian, unconstitutional, and reminiscent of authoritarian or totalitarian practices, arguing citizens should only ever swear allegiance to the U.S. Constitution.
“I find it absolutely Orwellian that a representative felt there was a need for a loyalty pledge to the state. As an American, our only loyalty is to the constitution.”
— Anthony Capodilupo, Mason · #582648 — read full submission →
“Requiring residents to swear allegiance to a state as a condition of voting is deeply Orwellian.”
— Cynthia Ingeme, Manchester · #583059 — read full submission →
“requiring citizens who were not born in New Hampshire to "swear an oath of loyalty" to the state is Orwellian in its scope, suggesting that voting is contingent upon blind loyalty to the state.”
— Josiah Parker, Henniker · #582173 — read full submission →
- Long-time residents feel unfairly labeled as "aliens"Oppose44 of 207 reviewed
Many opponents describe having lived, worked, and paid taxes in New Hampshire for years or decades despite being born elsewhere, and object to being treated as second-class or "alien" residents unless they take an oath.
“Labeling long-time residents as “aliens” simply because they were born elsewhere is offensive and unnecessary.”
— Corrie Bernow, Moultonborough · #575253 — read full submission →
“Since I have been a resident of New Hampshire for more than double the time I spent in Massachusetts, I feel I have a right to vote in NH without having been born here or having to sign a “loyalty” oath.”
— Rhonda Robinson, Sandown · #579823 — read full submission →
“I have been a lawful resident of NH since I was 10 years old, and this bill would label me an "alien?" It is outrageous.”
— Kathleen O'Connell, North Sandwich · #577787 — read full submission →
- Would disproportionately burden certain votersOppose36 of 207 reviewed
Opponents argue the added documentation and card requirements would disproportionately impact students, seniors, military families, low-income and disabled voters, naturalized citizens, and women whose legal names differ from their birth certificates.
“requiring more unnecessary documentation will disproportionately impact and suppress the votes of naturalized citizens, low income voters, disabled voters, elderly voters, and people who already face obstacles accessing state systems.”
— Samantha Grant, Derry · #580861 — read full submission →
“I’m sure that any woman that has changed her last name through marriage, by having that be different than on her birth certificate, would be denied this ID and thus be ineligible to vote.”
— Willa Vance, Manchester · #583057 — read full submission →
- Existing ID and residency checks are already sufficientOppose28 of 207 reviewed
Opponents argue New Hampshire already requires proof of citizenship and residency (such as Real ID or a driver's license) to register and vote, making an additional state citizenship card redundant.
- Citizenship is a federal matter, not a state oneOppose27 of 207 reviewed
Opponents argue under the Fourteenth Amendment that citizenship is defined exclusively at the federal level, and that states lack constitutional authority to create their own parallel citizenship framework tied to voting.
“New Hampshire does not have a separate state citizenship process. Citizenship is established under federal law, not state law.”
— Julie Schoelzel, Keene · #578391 — read full submission →
“Under long-settled constitutional doctrine, state citizenship flows automatically from U.S. citizenship and residence. States do not possess the authority to create a separate or heightened category of “state citizenship””
— Darryn Remillard, Windham · #576993 — read full submission →
- Voter fraud is rare; the bill solves no real problemOppose27 of 207 reviewed
Opponents argue that documented voter fraud in New Hampshire is extremely rare, so the bill addresses a problem that does not meaningfully exist while creating new barriers to voting.
“According to the Heritage Foundation, NH since 1982 has had 9 cases of voter fraud pertaining to false registration, hardly a rampant issue in this state.”
— Heather Tiberi, Penacook · #582674 — read full submission →
“Instances of voter fraud are "rare and isolated," and promptly investigated by state and local election officials, according to the report.”
— Herbert Archer, Mont Vernon · #576038 — read full submission →
- Implementation would cost millions of taxpayer dollarsOppose22 of 207 reviewed
Opponents cite a state estimate that implementing the citizenship-card system would cost more than $2.5 million, plus likely litigation costs, money they argue would be better spent on other state priorities.
“The Department of State has acknowledged that implementing this bill would require a statewide education and administrative overhaul costing more than $2.5 million.”
— Auburn Dean, Manchester · #574849 — read full submission →
“I oppose this bill. Not only will it cost the state at least the estimated $2.5 MILLION, future Constitutional challenges, which are certain to come, will cost even more.”
— Donna Schmidt, Manchester · #577946 — read full submission →
- Bill is intended as voter suppressionOppose20 of 207 reviewed
Opponents argue the bill's real purpose is to make voting harder for specific groups, such as students or non-native residents, rather than to protect election integrity.
“It is truly astonishing to me that the legislators of this state would propose such a ridiculous bill. This proposal is obviously a voter suppression tactic.”
— Ivy Pearson, Bethlehem · #580095 — read full submission →
“Everyone knows that if the state keeps adding new requirements for citizens to vote, less citizens will vote. Republicans are relying on corrupt voter suppression tactics like this, which mostly impact younger left-leaning constituents”
— Meghan Eckner, Hopkinton · #581371 — read full submission →
- Card concept acceptable only with clear residency proofNeutral1 of 207 reviewed
A neutral submitter says the state citizenship card idea is workable, but only if obtaining one strictly requires proof of residency in both the state and the specific town where the person votes.
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.
This is unacceptable and I am so sick of this "show me your papers" nonsense from the state. This is an unnecessary and extremely burdensome obstacle to voting that serves no purpose. Our democracy is best served when all eligible participate. Having to swear an oath of allegiance is not only some wack authoritarian behavior, but it makes me not want to vote, which is actually the greatest show of my allegiance as a citizen. I OPPOSE THIS ABSOLUTE NONSENSE. DO SOMETHING WORTHWHILE WITH YOUR POWER. THIS IS STUPID.
This is un-American and unacceptable of our government! Do not pass this, please!
I absolutely oppose this bill. This does not represent what I believe. West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette You can’t be compelled to state your beliefs in order to be allowed to vote. Unconstitutional. Live Free or Die!
I oppose HB1520 in the state of NH.
Each voter must "take an oath of allegiance to the state?" What will be the wording of such an oath? And voters will have to carry a New Hampshire citizenship "card?" In addition to their driver's license or other form of ID as presently required? (Even the present requirement seems excessive but appears to be working and sufficient.) This seems like a lot of added complexity and expense ($2.5 million) designed for no other reason than to keep people away from the polls when really the effort should be to make it easier for everyone to vote. As I understand it, fraudulent voting is extremely rare in New Hampshire, so I don't buy any argument that this is to prevent voting fraud. The fact that this bill is sponsored only by republicans is suspect and reeks of partisan meddling in the election process. I strongly oppose this bill.
This is a waste of time and money. I oppose this bill as I see it as unnecessary and a waste of tax payer money in a time of economic distress.
Requiring an oath to the state in order to vote would be unconstitutional.
This is the WORST bill I have ever heard of in the 26 years I have lived in this state! What is the purpose of this legislation, to keep everyone from their legal right to vote? What is the point of that? And taking an oath of allegience to the state??? What does that even mean? Allegiance to what? What does the state stand for?? Is that even clear?? This bill is a TRAVESTY and I could not be more OPPOSED to it!!
There are so few proven cases of voter fraud in NH that it’s a non-issue. This thinly-veiled effort to disenfranchise certain groups of voters would only do harm.
I oppose this bill as it is unnecessary and expensive. I do not believe state residents should be required to have a NH citizenship card. I believe this bill puts more barriers in the way of citizens attempting to exercise their right to vote.
I strongly oppose this bill. It is unconstitutional.
I oppose this bill.
What an absolute joke of a bill from an absolute joke of a government. Shame on all of you
Strongly oppose any bill that aims to add more prerequisites and hurdles for people trying to vote. Everybody has a constitutional right to vote and making it more tricky and difficult is only being done to suppress some individuals votes.
We already require id to vote
This bill places an outrageous burden upon the people of New Hampshire to vote, adding more cost to the New Hampshire resident, to the state, to the tax payer, and it adds wasteful red tape to a constitutional right.
Facial at the state level? No thanks
This is a violation of the First Amendment which protects freedoms of speech and religion, and the Fourteenth Amendment, which deals with citizenship rights and equal protection under the law. The First Amendment protects individuals against compelled speech and ensures the freedom to express oneself, including the right to refrain from speaking. Requiring an oath could be seen as compelling individuals to affirm loyalty or allegiance, which might infringe upon their right to hold differing political views or beliefs. The Fourteenth Amendment provides that no state shall make or enforce any law that abridges the privileges or immunities of citizens. An oath requirement could disproportionately impact certain groups, thus violating the principle of equal protection under the law. The right to vote is considered a fundamental right in the U.S. This right should not be hindered by additional requirements that could disenfranchise voters. U.S. Supreme Court cases have established that states should not impose unnecessary burdens on this fundamental right. Because of these constitutional protections, a requirement for voters to swear an oath to the state could be deemed unconstitutional as it may infringe upon individual rights, impose undue burdens on the right to vote, and potentially create inequalities. This bill would be completely UNCONSTITUTIONAL
This bill is unconstitutional.
I do not support this bill
What in the 1984 is this? Please vote against this fascist nonsense.
I vehemently OPPOSE this unconstitutional Bill and /or any other attempt to stop legitimate state residents from voting!
This bill is ridiculous and will just make voting harder. Pledging allegiance to the state is fascism pure and simple
I am opposed to this bill. I am US citizen and NH resident. I should be able to vote without taking an Oath to the State (whatever that means). This is just another way of voter suppression.