Requires absentee ballot applicants to verify their identity before receiving a ballot, either by submitting a copy of photo identification, providing a notarized signature on the application, or presenting identification in person to the clerk.
requiring applicants for absentee ballots to present a copy of their photo identification with their application.
SB287 would require applicants for absentee ballots to submit a copy of their photo identification with their application. The one clearly on-topic support submission frames this as consistent with in-person voter ID requirements and a security measure; the overwhelming majority of submissions oppose the bill, arguing it creates redundant and unnecessary barriers -- particularly for elderly, disabled, student, and military or overseas voters who rely on absentee voting -- that it targets a type of fraud with no documented evidence in New Hampshire, and that it amounts to a politically motivated effort to suppress turnout.
One submitter supports requiring photo ID for absentee ballot applications, arguing it is consistent with in-person voter ID requirements and improves election security, and expresses preference for an even stricter alternative bill.
Opponents argue the added ID requirement falls hardest on elderly, disabled, student, military/overseas, and nursing-home voters -- groups that often use absentee voting precisely because they cannot appear in person or easily obtain or copy identification.
“This bill makes it harder for hardworking Granite Staters to vote, especially seniors, those with disabilities, students, and other people who may not have easy access to a valid photo ID.”
— James Hiltz, Pembroke · #519876 — read full submission →
“bills like this one will restrict voting by groups including overseas voters, military families, people with disabilities, nursing home residents, and incarcerated individuals”
— Misty Hook, Claremont · #519264 — read full submission →
“The elderly, voters with disabilities, students, travelling workers, and military voters would be the most impacted.”
— Susanne Holstein, Bedford · #512944 — read full submission →
Many opponents express, often briefly, that voting should be made easier rather than harder and that the bill adds needless hurdles and complication to a process that should be simple.
“Voting in any form should be easier not harder. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say we need to establish barriers to voting.”
— Maura Willing, Concord · #518707 — read full submission →
“Absentee voting sometimes offers me the only way to perform my civic duty. Why make casting a ballot more challenging than it ought to be?”
— Nancy Emery, Hopkinton · #520112 — read full submission →
“Voting by absentee ballot should be made easier, simpler, and more straight forward—not more complicated. Requiring Notary Public authentication is unnecessary.”
— Nancy Jerauld, Litchfield · #518146 — read full submission →
Opponents describe the bill as part of a deliberate, politically motivated effort to make voting harder and disenfranchise eligible voters rather than a genuine security measure.
“The intent of this bill is to suppress the vote - making it harder to vote is un-American.”
— Robin Helrich, Hopkinton · #514633 — read full submission →
“I oppose SB 287 because it involves duplicity which deliberately makes voting more difficult for certain politically selected and otherwise eligible voters.”
— janet ward, Contoocook, NH 03229 · #519480 — read full submission →
“another attempt at voter suppression. make things as difficult as possible so people give us.”
— Lorna Carlisle, Salisbury · #519705 — read full submission →
Opponents argue there is no documented evidence of absentee voter fraud in New Hampshire, so the bill addresses a problem that does not exist while adding real costs to voters.
“NH has no voter fraud issues, especially through absentee voting. Yet, this legislature wants to make absentee voting ever more difficult.”
— Denise Clark, Milford · #519290 — read full submission →
“Why a concern about voter fraud when the Secretary of State assures us that none has been present in past elections?”
— Kent Hackmann, Andover · #517812 — read full submission →
“There is not significant voter fraud. It is anti-democratic to make it harder to vote.”
— Catherine Flinchbaugh, HOPKINTON · #520477 — read full submission →
Opponents argue voters already on the checklist provided sufficient identification and proof of eligibility when they registered, making a renewed ID requirement for each absentee application an unnecessary duplication.
“Voters on the checklist have already provided all the ID necessary during the registration process and should not be burdened with having to provide ID in person every year if already on the checklist”
— Robin Helrich, Hopkinton · #514633 — read full submission →
“If the voter is registered at the time of the absentee ballot request, there should be no need for further proof. This bill creates an unnecessary redundancy.”
— Rosemary D'Arcy, Bristol · #518801 — read full submission →
“Voters are already required to present their birth certificate or passport as proof of citizenship during the registration process.”
— Erik Durmer, Fitzwilliam · #516936 — read full submission →
Opponents argue the bill's signature-matching/notarization component is unreliable because untrained officials cannot accurately judge whether signatures match, and that courts have previously found this practice improper.
“Did you not know that the courts declared signature matching (notarization) illegal a few years ago because an untrained person cannot determine whether a signature matches or not?”
— Sheryl Williams, New London · #517663 — read full submission →
“I oppose SB287 because it includes signature matching which courts already declared illegal a few years ago since an untrained person cannot determine a match or no-match.”
— Kathryn Ellis, Durham · #519089 — read full submission →
“The use of signature matching in particular is problematic as many people's legitimate signatures are not "matched" this way due to natural variation in how they write, especially if they e.g. have hand tremors.”
— Benjamin Stinson, Concord · #520488 — read full submission →
Opponents argue that requiring notarization is especially impractical for the very voters who need absentee ballots because they cannot easily leave home, and that the state should provide mobile notary services if such a requirement is kept.
“If you need to register absentee, then how can you get to a notary? This is an impossible situation.”
— Anne Huberman, Peterborough · #517470 — read full submission →
“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.”
— Angela Strong, New London · #519235 — read full submission →
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 it adds additional steps and frustration to the voting process where none has been shown to be necessary. The use of signature matching in particular is problematic as many people's legitimate signatures are not "matched" this way due to natural variation in how they write, especially if they e.g. have hand tremors. Actions that increase the likelihood of legitimate voters being disenfranchised should only be considered if there's very compelling evidence that they're necessary, which we simply have not seen in New Hampshire. Otherwise we should keep things simple and make it easier for people to exercise their fundamental voting 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.
Another completly unnecessary bill designed to make voting more difficult in a climate that is relatively free of voter fraud. The effort to administer this bill would also be costly and time consuming.
Absentee voting sometimes offers me the only way to perform my civic duty. Why make casting a ballot more challenging than it ought to be?
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. Already proved qualified to vote when originally registered. Suppling a photo id makes no sense, how does the clerk know what I look like. This makes it harder for disabled and overseas voters to vote.
This bill is looking for a problem that does not exist. There is no evidence of voter fraud in this regard. Why would anyone unnecessarily make voting harder? Shouldn't overseas military, nursing home residents, and the disabled have access to ballots without undue hassle and inconvenience? Vote no on SB 287.
This bill makes it harder for hardworking Granite Staters to vote, especially seniors, those with disabilities, students, and other people who may not have easy access to a valid photo ID. The bill comes across as intentionally working to disenfranchise people, making it all the more likely a person's vote would be thrown out simply due to a signature mismatch, something already shown to be unreliable in numerous studies, or missing so-called "proper" documentation like an ID. This bill would also add more strain to local election officials, creating red tape and delays when it comes to the electoral process, not integrity and doing nothing to protect our votes. Though we have problems when it comes to voter registration and disenfranchisement, no doubt due to bills like this and others the legislature is trying to pass, our election systems themselves are viewed as some of the most secure in the entire country. This bill does nothing to improve upon our already reliable system and in fact, only makes voting all that harder for the average working person.
This bill is a terrible piece of legislation which would disenfranchise many voters wishing to register, especially newly-married spouses who wish to change their names to coordinate with the other spouse.!
another attempt at voter suppression. make things as difficult as possible so people give us.
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 Constitutional right to vote,
I oppose SB 287 because it involves duplicity which deliberately makes voting more difficult for certain politically selected and otherwise eligible voters. This bill, as well as SB 213, are politically inspired and painfully transparent. Why not instead offer legislation that is wise and persuasive on its merits which does not require an undermining of our democracy to promote passage by cleverly creating unnecessary voting barriers for eligible voters?
Another bill that requires more of absentee ballot voters than of in-person voters. By the nature of the need to vote with an absentee ballot, people don't have the wherewithal to supply a photo ID with their registration nor can they track down and pay for a notary public to notarize their application. This looks like an attempt to disenfranchise the very voters who need the most assistance to perform their duties as citizens. Please vote ITL on SB287.
NH already has some of the most restrictive voting requirements in the country. NH has no voter fraud issues, especially through absentee voting. Yet, this legislature wants to make absentee voting ever more difficult. SB 287 does not make voting in NH safer; it just makes it harder, especially for those with disabilities and for the elderly. I am a retired native NH resident who votes regularly; I am also the 24/7 caregiver for my disabled elderly husband who cannot be left alone. I have the right to vote. I vote by absentee ballot. Requiring copies of photo IDs for absentee ballot requests is pointlessly onerous, particularly if one does not have access to a printer. Once again, NH's Republican-dominated legislature only wants to make voting harder & disenfranchise voters entitled to vote, instead of helping people vote. NH Republicans are dedicated to creating "solutions" to non-existent "problems".
As I mentioned in my opposition to SB213, bills like this are pretending to solve problems that don't exist, all in an effort to suppress votes. Bills like this one will restrict voting by groups including overseas voters, military families, people with disabilities, nursing home residents, and incarcerated individuals by placing an undue burden of proof using documents that may not be easily accessed by all citizens. People who truly believe in democracy should be trying to expand voting rights, not restrict them.
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.
Requiring more identification is just a ploy. 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. Not everyone has a passport and it costs over $100 to get one. That might not be possible for some. this is just another obstacle to prevent someone from voting absentee.
I oppose SB287 because it includes signature matching which courts already declared illegal a few years ago since an untrained person cannot determine a match or no-match.
Please oppose this bill as it would negatively impact voters in our military services, and the disabled, student, and elderly populations.
The more narrowly the vote is restricted in New Hampshire, the greater the disservice to voters' constitutional rights.
Female