By Tom Jarvis
Governor Chris Sununu signed House Bill 1569 into law on September 12, introducing significant changes to New Hampshire’s voter registration and identification process – changes that have sparked heated debate about access to the ballot box.
The new law eliminates the use of affidavits as an acceptable form of identification and mandates that all voters provide valid identification without exception. Additionally, first-time voters in New Hampshire will need to provide proof of US citizenship.
The bill updates several statutes, including RSA 654:7 (voter registration forms) and RSA 654:7-a (same-day registration). It also revises RSA 659:27 and RSA 659:27-a, tightening procedures for challenging a voter’s eligibility, requiring challenges to be based on personal knowledge or probable cause.
For voters without valid photo identification, their eligibility will now need to be confirmed by the checklist supervisor. If their identity cannot be confirmed, they will not be allowed to vote but may appeal the decision in Superior Court.
Importantly, the bill does not take effect until November 11, meaning it will not impact the upcoming November 5 general election.
“We have a proud tradition and proven track record of conducting elections that are trusted and true,” said Governor Sununu. “Looking forward to the next decade or two, this legislation will instill even more integrity and trust in the voting process.”
Voter identification laws have become a prominent issue over the past decade. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 36 states have enacted laws requiring voters to present some form of ID at the polls which can include photo identification or a document without a photo, such as a utility bill, bank statement, or paycheck. Meanwhile, 14 states and Washington, DC, rely on alternative methods to verify voter identity, often comparing the voter’s signature or other personal details with records on file.
State Representative and former New Hampshire Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Lynn, who sponsored the bill, says it is “entirely reasonable,” but he acknowledges politicians of different parties have opposing views on the issue.
“Republicans feel very strongly that people who want to vote must establish that they are entitled to vote,” he says. “Our Democratic friends regard this as voter suppression. The analogy I often use is that if you go to the bank to withdraw money but forgot to bring your ATM card, you can’t say to the teller, ‘I really am who I say I am, I really do have an account here; I’ll just give you an affidavit.’ The bank would not accept that. And that’s true in so many other areas of daily life. It doesn’t make any sense to have a different process in the context of something as important as voting.”
Opponents of HB 1569 say the bill is unconstitutional and creates needless barriers to voting.
“People in New Hampshire, including the Secretary of State and the Governor, have said time and again that our elections are safe and secure. So, why are we changing the law to fence out qualified voters for no reason?” says American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of New Hampshire Deputy Legal Director Henry Klementowicz, adding that New Hampshire will now be the only state in the country to require documentary proof of citizenship to vote in federal elections.
Klementowicz continues: “Now, for example, if you’re registering to vote in New Hampshire, you must prove citizenship with documents, which means you need to have a birth certificate, a passport, or naturalization papers in your name. That’s a lot more cumbersome than merely voter ID because passports are over $100 and not everyone has one, but also birth certificates. If you get married and change your name – which many American women do – or if you transition, your birth certificate may not be in your legal name. These are serious burdens that are going to affect thousands of people. This bill was offered in the name of fighting voter fraud, but we know that is just vanishingly rare in New Hampshire.”
According to the New Hampshire Bulletin, Governor Sununu dismissed the criticism of HB 1569 as fearmongering, saying, “My argument is this: To say that somehow people can’t get identification and documents, in this day and age, 2024, we don’t do anything without documentation nowadays…. That’s absolutely required for a variety of different instances in our everyday lives. And this is no different.”
On September 30, the ACLU, the Coalition for Open Democracy, the League of Women Voters of New Hampshire, the Forward Foundation, and five current and future voters filed a federal lawsuit challenging the new law.
“Voting is the cornerstone of our democracy – and laws like this, which create unconstitutional roadblocks to voting and could stop thousands of eligible voters from participating in an election, have no place in our state,” Klementowicz said in a press release.
In the same press release, ACLU Voting Rights Project Staff Attorney Jacob Van Leer said: “By requiring documentary proof of citizenship for both state and federal elections, HB 1569 will impose one of the strictest voter registration schemes in the nation and make New Hampshire a clear outlier among the states.”
When asked for comment about the lawsuit, Representative Lynn said he is confident the law will be upheld.
“With some 20 million immigrants now in this country illegally, I cannot believe that the US Supreme Court will say it is unconstitutional for a state to require those who wish to vote to provide some reasonable documentation establishing that they are legally entitled to do so,” he says. “There will be good lawyers on both sides but in the end, the statute will be upheld. That’s just my personal opinion.”
Legal challenges to voter ID laws in other states have seen varied outcomes. For instance, a federal court struck down North Dakota’s voter ID law in 2018, citing its disproportionate impact on Native American voters, while other states have successfully defended similar laws.
The full impact of HB 1569 remains to be seen. While supporters argue that it will enhance the integrity of New Hampshire’s elections, opponents claim it places unnecessary barriers to voting. With the recent lawsuit filed by the ACLU and other voting rights groups, the constitutionality of the law and its potential effects on voters will ultimately be decided in the courts.
As New Hampshire navigates this contentious legislative landscape, the outcome of the lawsuit will be pivotal not only for the state’s voters but also as a precedent in the ongoing national debate over voter access and election integrity.