Requires voters lacking proof of residency such as a utility bill, lease, or deed to be referred to the supervisor of the checklist, who determines eligibility to vote and whose denial may be appealed to superior court.
requiring voters to prove domicile.
HB472 would require voters who lack a current address on their photo ID to present additional proof of domicile, such as a utility bill, lease, or deed, with the Supervisor of the Checklist empowered to judge sufficiency, and would eliminate provisional ballots. A small group of submitters supports the bill as an election-integrity and eligibility measure, while a much larger group opposes it as redundant, burdensome, and likely to disenfranchise registered voters, particularly students, renters, the elderly, and the homeless.
Supporters argue requiring proof of domicile ensures only voters with a genuine, established connection to a community decide its elections, and that this is a reasonable, common-sense requirement.
“HB 472 strengthens election integrity by requiring voters to prove domicile and eliminating provisional ballots. This ensures that only those with a legitimate, established connection to the community vote, preventing transient individuals from influencing local elections.”
— Richard Horowitz, Portsmouth · #455684 — read full submission →
“Common sense Requirement to determine voting eligibility and should be NH Law”
— SHAWN BARDONG, PORTSMOUTH · #457220 — read full submission →
Some supporters specifically favor the bill's elimination of provisional ballots, arguing that voting without immediate verification introduces uncertainty and potential for fraud.
Submitters argue that voters who do not carry a lease, utility bill, or similar document with them would be disenfranchised on election day despite already being registered and showing photo ID.
“This new requirement would mean that voters who do not have their current address on their identification would need additional documents to acquire a ballot – documents like a lease, car registration, or utility bill that they likely do not carry with them every day”
— Deborah Leavitt, Dover · #450131 — read full submission →
“having to produce proof of domicile at the time of voting would be very difficult for most of us given that in this age of paperless billing, I have no physical bills.”
— Anne Onion, Gilmanton · #453176 — read full submission →
Submitters, including several current and former Supervisors of the Checklist, argue that domicile is already verified when a voter registers, making a second proof requirement at the polls unnecessary duplication.
“This is totally unnecessary. I have been a supervisor of the checklist for 17 years. We vet the domicile of every voter when they register to vote. Stop adding stupid legislation to our a system that works well.”
— Jeanne Ludt, Amherst · #432992 — read full submission →
“Voters have proven their residency to become registered. They have provided documentation!”
— Katherine Anderson, Hancock · #425808 — read full submission →
Many submitters frame the bill broadly as an intentional effort to suppress turnout or discourage eligible voters, rather than a genuine integrity measure.
“Hell no. This is blatant voter suppression. If you want to stop election fraud, invest in tech to prevent hacking systems and increase security for ballot boxes.”
— Rhianna Cardone, Nashua · #455058 — read full submission →
“Another voter suppression bill, another stumbling block placed before voters.”
— Francis Oscadal, Lebanon · #448158 — read full submission →
Submitters argue the requirement would fall hardest on students, renters, the elderly, homeless individuals, and others who may lack traditional proof-of-address documents.
“Many students consider their college or university location as their primary residence, but may lack New Hampshire identification due to ties to family and family vehicles.”
— Debra Bowie, Keene · #455579 — read full submission →
“This goes after homeless people. Where is your humanity? This bill is a blatant attempt to suppress voting rights.”
— Louise Taylor, Tamworth · #447005 — read full submission →
Submitters argue that letting an individual election official decide whether a voter's qualifications are 'established' is a subjective process that could lead to biased or inconsistent decisions and unfairly turned-away voters.
Submitters, including poll workers themselves, argue the added verification step would create longer lines and significantly increase the time needed to check voters in.
Submitters argue New Hampshire has little to no documented voter fraud, so the added burden addresses a problem that does not meaningfully exist.
A smaller number of submitters point out that the bill's appeal mechanism to superior court could not realistically be completed before the election is over, leaving a rejected voter with no real recourse.
Generated by claude-sonnet-5 (claude code agent) on Jul 22, 2026. Quotes are verbatim excerpts, verified against the cited submission before publication. Summaries are AI interpretation of the record, not part of it.
HB 472 is onerous beyond belief. I am a native NH retiree who has lived in the same domicile for nearly 50 years. Under HB 472, I would have to prove my domicile EVERY time I vote. That is ludicrous. Just another anti-voter tactic.
This is over the top! Please oppose this bill as it will make voting day so much more difficult. I work the polls and they are so fine the way they are.
I support the right to vote for ALL citizens and I believe this bill will undermine that right by making voting more difficult for certain eligible voters.
I oppose more barriers to voting.
Just another means of voter suppression.
Our Provisional Ballot system works. Don't mess with it!
I oppose this bill.
I support this Bill.
I support this house bill.
I oppose this bill because the current law, which requires a person to show a voter I.D., should be proof enough, even if they have not updated their address on the ID. By requiring further proof and leaving the decision to the Supervisor of the Checklist, voters who do not have the necessary proof may walk away from their polling place. Or the Supervisor of the Checklist might make a biased decision. Furthermore, there are other situations where a voter might not have the required documents, such as someone who has moved into the state but does not drive or have their name on utility bills or other forms of proof.
HB 472, requiring voters to prove domicile and eliminates the concept of a “provisional ballot” Common sense Requirement to determine voting eligibility and should be NH Law
As a voter in my town, I have to prove I live here. Provisional ballots need to be eliminated. Either you are in the precinct and can prove it or not. Very simple.
I support this bill. .
I support this bill
This bill requires voters who don't have a current address on their photo ID present utility bills, lease deeds, etc to prove a voter's address which the Supervisor of the Checklist can evaluate and determine if qualifications have been met. This is onerous. Voters don't carry these documents around. Having the Supervisor of he Checklist do this evaluation is a vague process and can lead to valid registered voters being turned away due to an opinion of an election official. This law should not be passed.
This bill requires voters who don't have a current address on their photo ID present utility bills, lease deeds, etc to prove a voter's address which the Supervisor of the Checklist can evaluate and determine if qualifications have been met. This is onerous. Voters don't carry these documents around. Having the Supervisor of he Checklist do this evaluation is a vague process and can lead to valid registered voters being turned away due to an opinion of an election official. This law should not be passed.
In a season of stupid bills, this may be one of the most incredibly stupid ones proposed. As one already has to provide identification to vote, requiring additional documentation is both a waste of time and an infringement on the basic right to vote. Even structurally this is a foolish bill as the voter would have no time to actually appeal to superior court before the election was over, thus making this even more flawed. Trash this bill.
I support his bill
I fully support this bill! Election integrity is of utmost importance
This bill would restrict my rights as a voter. It would create another obstacle to a free and unbiased election. The current system is working why are you trying to change it? I oppose this bill.
As a former Supervisor of the Checklist, I can tell you that this is absolutely not necessary. There is already a process in place to verify the person's residence.
As a former Supervisor of the Checklist, I can tell you that this is absolutely not necessary. There is already a process in place to verify the person's residence.
As a former Supervisor of the Checklist, I can tell you that this is absolutely not necessary. There is already a process in place to verify the person's residence.
Ask the supervisors of the check list wat they think of this proposed bill, Answers would range from unnecessary, to a waste of time to why are you trying to disenfranchise certain voters. Next time you have an idea to try to reduce participation in NH voting so take a walk and get fresh air. You may be exposing yourself to too many conspiracy theories which paints a paranoid world where the "other" must be prevented from full agency in our elections. This is a false idea and encouraging s and enabling all to vote with ease is what you really want to do not making up sillines like this bill that wastes everyone's time
I strongly support this bill.