HB364

1. ✓Introduced
2. ✕House
3. Senate
4. Governor
5. Law

Hatched = form letter · 1 of 432 written submissions (0%) came from organized campaigns

HB364 would repeal the procedure that allows town clerks and Supervisors of the Checklist to deliver absentee ballots to residents of nursing homes and elder care facilities. The overwhelming majority of submissions oppose the bill, framing it as voter suppression that removes a safe, established process elderly and disabled residents rely on to vote; a smaller number raise election-integrity arguments, either that no evidence of fraud justifies the change or, less commonly, that removing official oversight could itself weaken safeguards. Essentially no submission substantively argues in favor of the repeal.

• Bill disenfranchises elderly and disabled voters (voter suppression)Oppose140 of 166 reviewed

  The great majority of submitters characterize the bill as a form of voter suppression that unfairly targets elderly and disabled residents, calling it cruel, discriminatory, or partisan, and argue it denies a vulnerable population's right to vote.

  • “The elderly and disabled have every right to vote, and I am disgusted that there are elected representatives trying to restrict the rights of nursing home residents to vote.”

    — Amy Agostino, Londonderry · #453356 — read full submission →

  • “We are suppressing voter rights under this bill. Elderly voters should not be excluded from voting because of mobility and health issues.”

    — Rhonda Farrington, Exeter · #446145 — read full submission →

• Repeals a safe, established ballot-delivery processOppose34 of 166 reviewed

  Many submitters describe the current practice of Supervisors of the Checklist or clerks visiting facilities to deliver absentee ballots as a safe, efficient, and long-used method, and argue the bill removes needed access without justification.

  • “Have some respect for our elder population and allow them the right and dignity to fulfill their civic obligation, as they have always done, through this secure absentee process.”

    — Daniel Kirby, BEDFORD · #450861 — read full submission →

  • “Currently, in many NH communities, the Supervisors of the Checklist will visit nursing homes and other elder care facilities, enabling residents to easily complete absentee ballots.”

    — Ben Dibble, Hudson · #452213 — read full submission →

• Personal and family experience with elderly relatives' voting needsOppose9 of 166 reviewed

  Several submitters describe specific family members or patients in nursing homes or assisted living who depend on delivered absentee ballots due to mobility or health limitations, using these accounts to argue against the repeal.

  • “The last few years of her life, she wanted to vote, but getting to the polls was difficult at best. Absentee voting was her best option.”

    — Bianca DiRuocco, Concord · #440945 — read full submission →

  • “I have a 93 year-old father who is an assisted living. It’s very difficult for him to get out because of mobility issues, but he is of sound mind.”

    — Joline Manseau, Hollis · #444555 — read full submission →

• No evidence of fraud justifies restricting ballot deliveryOppose5 of 166 reviewed · 1 via form letter

  Some submitters, including a form-letter template, argue that officials have confirmed voter fraud is not a problem in New Hampshire and that the state should make voting easier rather than adding restrictions.

  • “The Secretary of State and many officials from both parties confirm that voter fraud is not an issue in New Hampshire.”

    — form letter, submitted 24 times · #449517 — read full submission →

  • “This bill sets us back generations when our Attorney General has verified that our elections are accurate and safe.”

    — Karen Burnett-Kurie, Wolfeboro · #446958 — read full submission →

• Repeal could weaken election-integrity safeguardsOppose4 of 166 reviewed

  A few submitters take a different integrity-focused angle, arguing that removing trusted officials from the ballot-delivery process could reduce oversight and increase the risk of fraud or manipulation rather than prevent it.

  • “I. strongly oppose this Bill. This change will encourage fraud. This Bill needs to be stopped”

    — Gordon Springate, Wilton · #436847 — read full submission →

• Related concerns about voter ID and student residency rulesOppose3 of 166 reviewed

  A small number of submitters broaden the discussion to related voting-access issues, such as identification requirements for college students, arguing these also unfairly restrict eligible voters.

  • “Restricting right to vote of those eligible by limiting proof of identity and residence is non-democratic. Students who reside in NH to attend school are residents eligible to vote and may not have access to forms of identity other than university ID.”

    — PETER KAPLAN, Deering · #454028 — 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.

1 submissions match a shared template; 165 are individually written.

• Support for Accessible Voting LawsOppose1 submissions on this bill · 24 across 4 bills

  The template argues that existing voter laws are already restrictive and that proposed changes would make voting more difficult rather than improving election integrity.

  New Hampshire is already one of the most restrictive states in the country when it comes to voter laws. The Secretary of State and many officials from both parties confirm that voter fraud is not an issue in New Hampshire. We need to enter the 21st century and make voting easier NOT more difficult! Our nation is based on free and fair elections ~ restrictions do not make this either!!!

  Read full letter ▾

Detected by text-similarity clustering; campaign names are AI-generated.