Defines and restricts electioneering activities by public employees while on duty and requires absentee ballot applicants to present proof of identity, citizenship, age, and domicile.
(New Title) relative to electioneering by public employees and relative to absentee voting.
SB213 would tighten New Hampshire's absentee voting rules — requiring proof of identity, citizenship, age, and domicile, plus a notarized witness affirmation, for absentee ballot applications — while also addressing electioneering by public employees. Nearly all submitted testimony opposes the bill, arguing its new documentation and notarization requirements would create burdensome barriers that disproportionately affect elderly, disabled, and homebound voters, and that it addresses a voter-fraud problem opponents say does not exist; no submissions were found substantively arguing in favor of the bill's added restrictions.
Opponents argue the bill's added proof-of-identity and notarization requirements would be especially difficult for elderly, disabled, and homebound voters to satisfy, effectively disenfranchising people who most rely on absentee voting.
“I work as a ballot clerk in my town, and I have spoken with voters who were practically in tears as they shared how a family member was physically UNABLE to make it to Town Hall to drop off a ballot in person”
— Karen Dudra, Exeter · #518999 — read full submission →
“Requesting that he provide all the information again that was provided at registration, and to have his identity signed by a Notary is impossible. A notary will come to our house? I don’t think so.”
— Carolyn Castellucci, Tamworth · #519895 — read full submission →
“Requiring a birth certificate is not readily available for many people. A woman's name may be changed by marriage. and likely not the same as on her birth certificate.”
— Rosalind Lowen, lincoln · #519143 — read full submission →
Opponents characterize the bill's added requirements as intentionally or effectively suppressing turnout among certain groups, comparing them to historical voter-suppression tactics.
“These bills smack of the tricks that were employed after the Fourteenth Amendement to the Constituion was passed. Measures such as poll taxes and literacy tests are a thing of the past and should remain so!”
— Leslie Ari, Chichester · #519881 — read full submission →
“I oppose SB213 because it is a blatant scheme for voter suppression, making it harder for the ederly, sick, disabled, in cases of bad travel conditions, or anyone who has a family emergency to be able to cast their ballot.”
— Anita Klein, Newmarket · #518971 — read full submission →
Opponents argue voter fraud is rare to nonexistent in New Hampshire, making the bill's added requirements an unnecessary solution to a problem that does not exist.
“This is a “solution looking for a problem” in my view. The current process for Absentee Voting should only be changed if it actually improves”
— Royal Richardson, Chester · #518360 — read full submission →
“Lying about your identity for purposes of an absentee ballot is already punishable by perjury, and we've never found any evidence of widespread voter fraud of this type.”
— Benjamin Stinson, Concord · #520479 — read full submission →
Some opponents, including election workers, argue the existing absentee voting process functions well and that the bill would add complexity without improving the system.
“As a poll worker I am 100 percent certain our current system is working. Why make it more difficult.”
— Marc Lacroix, Concord · #517857 — read full submission →
“This bill is unnecessary as the current system is very adequate to identify. The stated requirement to require a witness affirmation signed by a Notary or a Justice of the Peace is just plain overkill and unnecessary.”
— James Griffin, Durham · #520415 — read full submission →
Opponents argue that voters who are already registered and have previously provided identifying documentation should not be required to resubmit that proof to obtain an absentee ballot.
One opponent, addressing the bill's electioneering provisions, argues that allowing voters to wear clothing with political slogans at the polls is susceptible to abuse.
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.
IT'S A BURDEN. This is not how voting should be and the supporters of these bills think everyone is gaming the system. Not true. Your party can win with good policy and helping people. You don't need to find painful ways to prevent them from voting.
I'm opposed to this bill because I feel that requiring additional proof of identity when casting absentee ballots adds unnecessary barriers to voting. Lying about your identity for purposes of an absentee ballot is already punishable by perjury, and we've never found any evidence of widespread voter fraud of this type. This adds extra steps that are just going to cause trouble for New Hampshire citizens trying to exercise their rights.
There is not significant voter fraud. It is anti-democratic to make it harder to vote. We should be addressing actual problems, not made up ones.
This bill is unnecessary as the current system is very adequate to identify. The stated requirement to require a witness affirmation signed by a Notary or a Justice of the Peace is just plain overkill and unnecessary.
This is an unreasonable burden designed to interfere with NH residents' right to vote.
Since we have an aging population of voters, does it make sense to curtail their valuable right to participate in state and federal elections?
I oppose this bill. It appears to bring in line the requirements for in person and absentee voter registration and voting. At first glance, that make sense. However, these changes, especially the notary requirement, would make it onerous for older adults as well as family caregivers and others because of the difficulty of getting to the town clerk's office, a supervisors meeting or to the polls. Also of questionable worth is requiring a copy of a drivers license to obtain an absentee ballot. Presenting a drivers license at the polls has some worth, the election inspector can see that the person in front of her/him is the person presenting the ID, though this doesn't actually prove it is the person who registered to vote. Sending a copy of the drivers license doesn't add value. The moderator who opens the ballot envelope doesn't see the person to confirm the identity. It's just an added burden for the voter and an additional task for the moderator. With regards.
we should not be making it harder for people to vote, DO YOUR JOB!!
I will be 80 years old in September and I cannot predict how I will be feeling in terms of my health but I still want very much to be able to vote and I don't think it is fair to threaten a citizen with the possibility of a misdemeanor if they have completed their absentee ballot yet feel up to leaving their house on the day of voting.There are many reasons a person may not be able to make it into the polls on the day of voting yet still want to be a responsible citizen and vote!
This is an attempt to limit voting. My husband is a disabled veteran. He is registered to vote, so has proven his eligibility to vote. Requesting that he provide all the information again that was provided at registration, and to have his identity signed by a Notary is impossible. A notary will come to our house? I don’t think so. When he was overseas, if this type of documentation was required, that he had already supplied at registration, would make it impossible to vote.
I oppose any legislation that makes it more difficult for US citizens to vote - particularly those aimed at disenfranchised communities. These bills smack of the tricks that were employed after the Fourteenth Amendement to the Constituion was passed. Measures such as poll taxes and literacy tests are a thing of the past and should remain so!
Voters are already required to attest to their eligibility when they register to vote via a sworn affidavit. Additional additional steps and requirements, even just the scanning, printing and/or submitting additional documents, are steps that can disenfranchise eligible voters, especially those with disabilities that may need assistance with these additional steps or need to register absentee. Needing a notary for these steps can also be a burden for some voters, especially if they have difficulty traveling. If these steps are supposed to be implemented, than what tools and resources will our government be providing to aid citizens in completing these steps? Or is the goal of this bill simply to disenfranchise people?
This bill adds an unnecessary requirement, which will make it more difficult for voters to register and vote absentee.
in small towns it is not easy to get something notarized on the same day the town clerk is working. Also, all this jumping through hoops to prove you are a US citizen is another attempt at voter suppression
Make voting easier not harder.
I oppose this bill because I think it makes voting more difficult.
This bill makes it more difficult for those who need an absentee ballot to vote. This system has been working and doesn't need changes that chill the power to vote,
SB 213 as well as SB 287 make it UNNECESSARILY more difficult for an eligible voter to vote. NH does not have any problem which these bills address. I am painfully disappointed by this transparent undermining of our democracy.
I oppose this bill as it would disenfranchise many eligible voters who would find these extra requirements impossible to meet because they can't get to a. notary or don't have any way to scan and print the documents needed to get an absentee ballot.
Requiring proof of citizenship is equivalent to a poll tax, since acquiring either a birth certificate or a passport both entail an expenditure. SB213 would certainly be contested in the courts, costing the state legal fees.
This puts too many obstacles in the way of voting. We have so little fraud, this is a solution in search of a problem.
This is an amazingly burdensome bill! Why are people who most need assistance to vote apparently being disenfranchised by bureaucratic requirements? It makes no sense to require those who are probably least able to follow through on complex procedures to follow the details in this bill. And requiring a notarized ballot -- no-one else has to do that? Why should someone who cannot leave home and therefore must vote by absentee ballot be required to search out a notary public? Same question about proof of identity when people are already registered and eligible. PLEASE vote this bill ITL! It is a travesty in its attempt to disenfranchise the very most needy voters!
We should be trying to make voting easier, not more difficult. Voter fraud is an extremely rare phenomenon. Bills like this one that pretend to be fixing that problem when in fact they serve more as voter suppression. In a democracy, we should want as many people as possible to vote so we all have true representation. People voting in support of this bill aren't fooling anyone.
I do not support placing needless barriers onto the voter registration process. If the government passes a law requiring notarization of mail in voter registration forms, it should provide mobile notary services to voters who are without access to transportation services, or have a disability which prevents them from registering in person.
These added restrictions are not needed with regards to NH absentee voter laws. They are discriminatory and discouraging and are clearly designed to keep certain people from voting. Our state should do everything it can to make voting easier not harder.