Relative to the arrangement of candidates on primary election ballots
Summary
HB 130 would change how candidate names are arranged on New Hampshire primary election ballots. Under current law, candidate names are not fully rotated across ballot positions in all cases; this bill would require that when two or more candidates are seeking nomination to the same office, their names be alternated so each appears at the top, bottom, and middle positions of the ballot as nearly an equal number of times as possible. The bill also removes the existing special rule for state representative races that required alphabetical ordering of surnames.
The stated purpose is to reduce any advantage that may come from being listed first on the ballot by ensuring a more even distribution of ballot positions. The bill applies to state primary election ballots and would take effect 60 days after passage.
Impact
HB 130 would amend RSA 656:24, the state law governing the order of candidate names on primary election ballots. It would replace the current exception for state representative races and require alternating ballot order for any office with two or more candidates for nomination, affecting ballot design statewide. The fiscal note indicates no direct revenue impact, but it anticipates indeterminable increases in state expenditures because the Department of State would need to update ballot design software, printing and testing procedures, train local election officials, and potentially reprogram electronic ballot-counting and accessible voting systems.
Sentiment
The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded votes, so there is no direct evidence of debate, support, or opposition in the materials provided. Based on the bill’s structure, it appears to be a technical election-administration measure aimed at ballot fairness rather than a partisan policy change. The fiscal note suggests administrative concern about implementation costs, but no formal sentiment from legislators or the public is documented here.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is implementation burden versus ballot fairness. Supporters would likely favor the bill as a way to reduce positional bias and make ballot placement more equitable among candidates. Opponents or cautious reviewers may focus on the Department of State’s warning that the change could require significant software, printing, testing, training, and equipment programming updates, with costs that are not yet determinable. The elimination of the special alphabetical rule for state representative races may also be a point of interest for election administrators.