Closing the presidential or state primary of political parties.
Summary
HB 220 would change New Hampshire’s state and presidential primary rules so that a voter registered as undeclared could no longer automatically vote in a party primary. Under the bill, only voters who have declared a party would be entitled to receive that party’s primary ballot, unless the party has adopted a rule specifically allowing undeclared voters to participate. The bill also requires the secretary of state to inform voters and election officials about whether each party has opened its primary to undeclared voters.
The bill further adds a new enforcement provision allowing an aggrieved person to sue a party chairperson and/or the secretary of state for gross negligence or willful misconduct in violating RSA 659:14, with recovery of court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees for the prevailing party. It defines gross negligence as deliberate indifference and bars parties from changing or rescinding their undeclared-voter rule until after primary results are announced. The bill takes effect January 1, 2026.
Impact
HB 220 would amend RSA 659:14, narrowing access to party primary ballots for undeclared voters and shifting the default from open primaries to closed primaries unless a party affirmatively opts in. It would also impose new administrative duties on the secretary of state and party chairs to notify voters, publish party rules, and manage election-day instructions. In addition, it creates a potential civil cause of action and fee-shifting exposure for alleged gross negligence or willful misconduct by party officials or the secretary of state, which could affect election administration and litigation risk.
Sentiment
The bill’s overall posture appears supportive of party-controlled primaries and more restrictive ballot access, with sponsors advancing it as a change to primary participation rules. The fiscal note suggests the state would need to conduct voter education because of the large undeclared electorate, indicating the change would be operationally significant. No committee transcript or recorded vote information was provided, so there is no documented public debate in the supplied materials, but the bill’s structure suggests it is likely to draw interest from both election-integrity advocates and supporters of New Hampshire’s open-primary tradition.
Contention
The main point of contention is whether undeclared voters should continue to participate in party primaries by default. Supporters of the bill would favor giving parties greater control over their nomination process, while opponents would likely argue that it reduces access for the state’s large undeclared electorate and changes a long-standing feature of New Hampshire elections. A second area of concern is the new liability provision, which could expose party chairs and the secretary of state to lawsuits over election administration decisions and may be viewed as either a needed enforcement mechanism or an unnecessary litigation risk.