Relative to electioneering by public employees.
SB 213 would revise New Hampshire’s absentee voting rules in several significant ways. First, it changes the standard for determining whether a voter qualifies as absent on election day from a more discretionary formulation to a new threshold: the voter must show that it is “more likely than not” that they will be absent. The bill applies that standard across absentee voting categories, including general absentee ballots, presidential primary requests, and absentee registration affidavits for first-time registrants and voters with physical disabilities.
The bill also substantially expands the documentation required when applying for an absentee ballot or absentee registration. Applicants would need to present proof of identity, citizenship, age, and domicile in specified combinations, and the application form would be revised to require more detailed personal information, including government-issued identification numbers. The bill retains existing absentee categories such as disability, religious observance, employment obligations, and hazardous travel conditions, but it rewrites the application language to make eligibility more explicit and to add fraud warnings and civil/criminal penalty references.
SB 213 would amend RSA 657:4, RSA 654:17, and RSA 657:1, thereby changing the statutory framework for absentee ballot applications and absentee voter registration in New Hampshire. It would impose a stricter eligibility standard for absentee voting, require more extensive identity and residency verification, and direct the secretary of state to update official forms accordingly. The bill also adds or reinforces compliance and enforcement provisions, including misdemeanor penalties for improper absentee voting and civil penalties for certain violations involving absentee ballot request communications. In practical terms, the measure would likely make absentee voting and absentee registration more administratively burdensome for voters and election officials, while potentially reducing disputed or fraudulent absentee applications.
The bill’s overall tone is restrictive and security-focused, emphasizing verification, eligibility standards, and fraud prevention. Based on the text alone and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the measure appears designed to tighten absentee voting procedures rather than expand access. The fiscal note suggests the Department of State anticipated additional training needs but no direct fiscal impact, while judicial and correctional costs were described as indeterminable if enforcement actions increase.
The main points of contention likely center on the bill’s stricter absentee eligibility standard and the expanded proof requirements. Supporters would likely view these changes as safeguards against improper absentee voting and clearer administration of election law. Opponents would likely argue that requiring proof of citizenship, age, and domicile, along with more detailed identification information, could create barriers for eligible voters—especially first-time registrants, voters with disabilities, elderly voters, and those relying on absentee voting due to work, caregiving, or weather-related travel concerns. Another possible area of dispute is the bill’s treatment of third-party absentee ballot request communications, which imposes identification and formatting requirements and civil penalties that could affect civic groups, campaigns, and ballot-access advocates.