A group of Democratic lawmakers want to repeal the voter ID requirements implemented under Republican leadership. Current law requires that voters be asked for photo identification at the polls, but does not require they have one to cast a ballot. In elections this year, people who wanted to vote but did not have ID had to sign an affidavit.
Every two years, one of my favorite rituals of New Hampshire’s peculiar form of democracy is the recount. With 500 races on the ballot statewide, most of them in relatively small districts, there are dozens of races that come down to a very small number of votes. And every election, a few seats change hands once we get a closer look at the ballots. In fact, recounts in two state representative districts have already resulted in new winners.
The state Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a dispute over New Hampshire’s new voter registration law. The law, passed by the Republican-dominated Legislature over Gov. John Lynch’s veto, requires new voters to sign a statement saying that they declare New Hampshire their domicile and are subject to laws that apply to all residents, including laws requiring drivers to register cars and get a New Hampshire driver’s license. A Strafford County Superior Court judge last week sided with out-of-state college students and civil liberty groups who challenged the law and ordered the secretary of state’s office to remove the paragraph about residency laws from the voter registration form. That prompted the attorney general’s office to ask the state Supreme Court to put the lower court’s ruling on hold and to review the case itself. The high court agreed Monday and set a deadline of the end of the day Thursday for the parties to file responses.
The state Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a dispute over New Hampshire’s new voter registration law. The law, passed by the Republican-dominated Legislature over Gov. John Lynch’s veto, requires new voters to sign a statement saying that they declare New Hampshire their domicile and are subject to laws that apply to all residents, including laws requiring drivers to register cars and get a New Hampshire driver’s license. A Strafford County Superior Court judge last week sided with out-of-state college students and civil liberty groups who challenged the law and ordered the secretary of state’s office to remove the paragraph about residency laws from the voter registration form. That prompted the attorney general’s office to ask the state Supreme Court to put the lower court’s ruling on hold and to review the case itself. The high court agreed Monday and set a deadline of the end of the day Thursday for the parties to file responses.
The New Hampshire attorney general will appeal a Strafford County Superior Court ruling Monday that put on hold a new voter registration law that opponents claimed would disenfranchise nonresident college students. Secretary of State Bill Gardner, who supported the law that the Republican-dominated Legislature passed over Gov. John Lynch’s veto earlier this year, said he was told by the attorney general’s office that it would challenge Judge John Lewis’ decision. The ruling was issued after the state and the plaintiffs failed to come up with an agreement to remedy the dispute last week. In an eight-page decision, Lewis said the law did not pass “constitutional muster” and ordered the state to issue new voter registration forms without the language that required newly registered voters to acknowledge they are subject to all residency laws, including driver’s license and auto registration laws.
Strafford County Superior Court Judge John Lewis ruled Monday that out-of-state students have the right to vote in New Hampshire, a decision immediately criticized by top Republican legislators. “New Hampshire citizens have a right to elect individuals of their own choosing,” House Speaker William O’Brien said in a joint statement with Senate President Peter Bragdon. “Allowing non-residents into New Hampshire to dictate who will be our presidential choice, who shall be our governor, and who shall represent us in the Legislature takes away our voting rights.” He added: “Legislating otherwise from the bench to say there are two classes of voters — all of us who reside in New Hampshire, and those residents of other states who choose to vote here because we are a battleground state — is judicial activism of the worst sort. The Supreme Court needs to act quickly to restore the voting rights of New Hampshire’s citizens” The law — passed in June by a Senate override of Gov. John Lynch’s veto — required people to sign a form declaring New Hampshire as their domicile.
While he was leaning toward siding with four college students, Superior Court Judge John Lewis won’t decide until this afternoon whether out-of-state students need to establish residency to vote here. Lewis heard arguments Wednesday about a new law — originally filed as Senate Bill 318 — which requires people to sign a form declaring New Hampshire as their domicile. As a result, voters would be subject to all state laws, including having to register their vehicle and obtain a New Hampshire driver’s license within 60 days of coming to live in the state. Between 1979 and 2007 students were allowed to vote in New Hampshire while maintaining residency in other states. The law was changed in June after the Legislature overrode Gov. John Lynch, who had vetoed the bill. “This is a serious decision,” Lewis said, adding both sides have until this afternoon to file any additional arguments, evidence or information before he makes a ruling.
The League of Women Voters is suing New Hampshire to halt a new voter registration requirement it sees as discriminatory toward college students from out of state. Meanwhile, the primary’s test run for a new photo identification requirement prompted complaints from voters in Salem, Londonderry, Pelham and other communities throughout the state, according to the League and America Votes, a voter rights advocacy group. The League of Women Voters filed a petition yesterday in Strafford County Superior Court, challenging the registration law. It asked the court to either block enforcement or rule that voters who plan to leave the state at a specific time in the future do not have to register vehicles or obtain a driver’s license.
A controversial new law that will require voters to show identification drew mixed reactions at the polls Tuesday, causing outbursts of aggravation from some voters and frustration from poll workers who took the brunt of the complaints. The law, which requires registered voters to show an approved form of identification to receive a ballot, appeared to be at the forefront of voting-related issues reported at the polls. It will officially go into effect in November, when voters without an accepted ID will be required to fill out a challenged voter affidavit, which asks the voter to affirm his or her identity under penalty of law before voting. Voters who did not produce an ID Tuesday, a day poll workers used as an opportunity to prepare residents for the new requirement, were handed an information card explaining the new law and what will be required in the Nov. 6 election.
New Hampshire election officials may have to hunt down nearly 50,000 people in November and ask whether they really voted.
That’s one possible conclusion from Tuesday’s dry run of the state’s new voter ID law, which also produced some hard feelings, irritation and a bit of rudeness, judging from comments recorded by ballot clerks at Nashua’s Ward 2. Roughly 7 percent of the 7,570 people who voted in Nashua on Tuesday didn’t have a photo ID or didn’t want to show it. Figures for ID-less voters varied around the region, from 2 percent in Hudson to more than 10 percent in some Souhegan Valley towns. Statewide figures were not available Wednesday. But let’s assume the 7 percent figure holds true statewide in November – and City Clerk Paul Bergeron expects it to rise in Nashua, since the presidential race will draw lots of casual voters who won’t know about the new law. Then consider that 700,000 people voted in New Hampshire’s last presidential election, a number that also seems likely to rise. The conclusion? At least 49,000 people may have to fill out and sign an affidavit attesting to their identity before they can vote, which could lead to long lines at voting places, the need for more poll workers and, assuming a longer wait, some people turning away from voting entirely.
After reportedly receiving complaints from voters in nearly two dozen communities regarding the state’s new voter ID law, the League of Women Voters and the New Hampshire chapter of the Civil Liberties Union are contemplating a legal challenge. Claire Ebel, executive director of the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union, said the complaints ran the gamut from signs in polling places saying identification was required, to some voters claiming they were told they had to show a photo ID before they could vote. “The debacle that occurred in some places yesterday may impact the decision on whether to challenge the voter ID law,” Ebel said yesterday. “Information given (Tuesday) may give more credence to challenging that law.”
Cynthia Houston, 84, had a flash of grumpiness when she went to vote yesterday in Boscawen: Her husband reminded her that she was supposed to bring a photo ID after they’d already gotten in line in the basement of the Congregational church. “He didn’t remember to tell me when we got out of the car,” Houston said. She had already started to leave when a town official stopped her and said she could still vote yesterday, which election officials considered a test-run for the implementation of the state’s new voter ID law. She wasn’t the only one to run into some trouble yesterday, the final election day in which voters could simply show up at the polls, announce themselves and receive a ballot. Yesterday, officials also asked for a photo ID, and voters who couldn’t or wouldn’t produce one were supposed to received a sheet informing them that on Nov. 6, they would need to produce a photo ID or sign an affidavit swearing they were who they said they were.
The Justice Department approved New Hampshire’s new voter ID, a version that is stricter than existing rules in the Granite State, but not as restrictive as other voters ID laws that the DOJ has rejected.’ Under New Hampshire’s previous rules, no ID was required as a condition of voting. Ballot clerks checked the names that voters announced at the polls, read back the addresses for verification, and handed over a ballot. Under the state’s new law, voters must present a photo ID — a driver’s license, a voter ID card, a military ID card, a US passport, a student ID card, a photo ID issued by any level of government, and any other photo ID deemed legitimate by supervisors at the polls.
Gov. John Lynch let become law without his signature Friday a key change in the new requirement that voters will be asked for a photo ID at the polls this fall. The change means that those casting ballots who don’t have an ID will have to sign an affidavit under penalty of perjury that they are who they claim to be and that they live in the voting district. Legislative leaders passed this second bill, HB 1354, after Lynch had vetoed an earlier voter ID bill, SB 289, because that bill would have required those without an ID to answer many more questions on a different affidavit including about their past immigration status. Two weeks ago, the Republican-led Legislature passed the original voter ID law over Lynch’s veto.
Town and city clerks should have an easier time complying with the state’s new Voter ID law after Gov. John Lynch let Senate Bill 1354 become law Friday without his signature. The new law requires voters to present a valid photo ID to vote at the polls or be photographed and sign an affidavit saying they are who they say they are. The bill lets election officials use an existing form called a challenged voter affidavit instead of a new form to be called a qualified voter affidavit in an earlier version of the law. “The challenged form is something we’re familiar with; we’ve been using it a long time,” Nashua City Clerk Paul Bergeron said Friday. “I think it’s just a small way of helping to simply the implementation of the new process,” he said.
Lawmakers and others were celebrating the override of Gov. John Lynch’s veto of the photo identification bill, but the celebration may have come a little too early. The pending law must be reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice because any significant changes in state election laws — and requiring photo identification is a significant change — have to be reviewed. New Hampshire — the only Northern state affected — and 15 other states are subject to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which seeks to eliminate discriminatory voting practices that bar or hinder voting by minorities. New Hampshire was snagged in the 1968 presidential election when 10 towns were identified with less than 50 percent of adults voting in the a presidential election, a violation of the act.
U.S Attorney General Eric Holder could be the last hurdle between New Hampshire and its new Voter ID law. Granite State lawmakers may have overcome the objection of Governor John Lynch to the state’s new Voter ID law, but they may still have to get Holder’s permission. Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Department of Justice must “pre-clear” any changes in election laws affecting ten New Hampshire communities. The House and Senate overrode Lynch’s veto to a new Voter ID law on Wednesday, meaning voters will have to show photo identification at the polls this fall, or sign an affidavit that they are who they claim to be. New Hampshire Assistant Attorney General Matt Mavrogeorge tells New Hampshire Watchdog that his office has let Washington know that the new law is on the books. “We’ve been in contact with the lawyers in Washington to let them know about the law,” Mavrogeorge says. “We don’t anticipate any problems.”
In another significant accomplishment for the Republican-controlled Legislature, the Senate and House on Wednesday passed a law requiring people to present photo identification when voting, while adopting a last-minute amendment meant to ease concerns expressed by voting officials ahead of the November elections. The Senate voted 18-5 to override the governor’s veto of Senate Bill 289, which will require voters this November to show a photo ID or sign an affidavit. The House passed the bill 231-112. Both votes exceeded the two-thirds margin necessary for a veto override. The last-minute change concerned the kind of affidavit required of voters who do not have acceptable identification in this year’s elections. The Senate voted to reintroduce a bill it had tabled earlier in the session, House Bill 1354, and amend it to change all references to a “qualified voter affidavit” in SB 289 to “challenged voter affidavit.”
The Legislature has passed a law requiring people to present photo identification when voting, while adopting a last-minute amendment meant to ease concerns expressed by voting officials ahead of the November elections. The Senate voted 18-5 on Wednesday to override the governor’s veto of Senate Bill 289, which will require voters this November to show a photo ID or sign an affidavit. The House passed the bill 231 -112. Both votes exceeded the two-thirds margin necessary for a veto override.
The Legislature has passed a law requiring people to present photo identification when voting, while adopting a last-minute amendment meant to ease concerns expressed by voting officials ahead of the November elections. The Senate voted 18-5 on Wednesday to override the governor’s veto of Senate Bill 289, which will require voters this November to show a photo ID or sign an affidavit. The House passed the bill 231 -112. Both votes exceeded the two-thirds margin necessary for a veto override.
Gov. John Lynch on Thursday vetoed a bill that would require voters to show a photo ID or sign a qualified voter affidavit, setting up a showdown with legislators next week. Using a qualified voter affidavit shouldn’t be used to establish a voter’s identity to vote and “will cause confusion, slow the voting process and may result in the inability of eligible voters to cast their vote,” Lynch wrote in his veto message for Senate Bill 289. Handicapping next week’s vote to override the governor’s veto, Rep. David Bates, R-Windham, said, “I think it’s entirely up to the Senate at this point.” Sen. Russell Prescott, R-Kingston, said he would push for the Senate next week to pass a corrections bill to satisfy the governor’s concern by substituting the use of the qualified voter affidavit with a simpler challenged voter affidavit, which is now used to challenge a person’s qualifications to vote. A corrections bill, if approved by the Senate, would go to the House for a vote and on to the governor to sign or veto, he said.
New Hampshire’s Democratic governor vetoed a voting law passed by the state’s Republican-controlled legislature today, saying it “would put into place a photo identification system that is far more restrictive than necessary.” The law would have allowed various forms of ID to be used in this November’s election, including student ID. However, only driver’s licenses, state-issued non-driver’s identification cards, passports or military IDs would be allowed in later elections. Residents without photo ID would have been able to sign an affidavit and be photographed by an election official. “We need to encourage all New Hampshire citizens to vote and to participate fully in our democracy,” Gov. John Lynch said in a veto statement. “We also need to ensure that our election laws do not unfairly burden those voters that have recently established a domicile in New Hampshire and are qualified to vote in this state.”
New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch says a bill intended to strengthen the state’s voter registration process would only lead to confusion and could harm the ability of citizens to participate fully in democracy. Lynch on Wednesday vetoed a bill that would require people registering to vote to sign a statement saying that they declare New Hampshire as their domicile and are subject to state laws, including laws requiring drivers to register their vehicles.
Oops. There’s another glitch in the voter ID bill that’s headed to the desk of Gov. John Lynch. The compromise bill enjoys strong Republican support in the House of Representatives and the Senate. But this was predicated on the measure not facing opposition from the city and town clerks across the state or Secretary of State Bill Gardner. That’s where the hang-up comes in. At the 11th hour, the legislation was changed by House and Senate negotiators. The key language deals with what happens at the general election this November if you don’t have an ID. The compromise requires that you have to sign an affidavit under penalty of perjury that attests you are who you say you are and that you’re eligible to vote at the polling place. The clerks had wanted the affidavit to be the one the Senate had proposed for challenged voters.
New Hampshire voters would be required to show photo identification at the polls starting next year under a compromise bill approved by the House and Senate. The bill approved Wednesday essentially calls for starting with what the Senate had proposed, followed by the House.
A new legislative compromise would ask all voters to show a photo identification card before casting ballots in state elections starting this fall. Those voters without an ID would still be able to vote without having to fill out any additional paperwork, but a different, voter ID law would kick in after July 1, 2013. Negotiators literally split this one down the middle creating the legal scheme for 2012 the Senate wanted and then more rigorous voter ID requirements later, which was the desire of House Speaker William O’Brien, R-Mont Vernon.
House and Senate negotiators came to an agreement today on a voter ID bill that if passed will go into effect in 15 months. According to chief House negotiator Rep. David Bates, R-Windham, concessions were made by both sides before a compromise was reached. The result, said Bates, was essentially the passing of both versions of the bill. “What’s going to happen now – in order for there to be at least in the Senate’s mind an orderly, trouble-free process – (we’re) going to use the provision of the Senate bill that accepts many, many more forms of identification,” he said. That wide identification acceptance will be used during what Bates called a “transitionary period,” which he said is really just a process to get voters used to the new requirements. Discretion will also be given to the election official, such as during instances when they know the person voting. “(Voters) will be asked for an ID, but wont be required to have one in order to vote,” Bates said in regard to the upcoming elections.
House and Senate lawmakers indicated Tuesday that a compromise might be possible on a bill to require voters to show photo identification before casting ballots if they can resolve differences over issues such as when certain provisions should take effect and what types of IDs can be used. Sen. Russell Prescott, the bill’s prime sponsor, opened the negotiating session by telling House members that their version of the bill was likely to be vetoed by the governor or challenged in court, while the Senate version “is ready for prime time.” “I think you guys are on the ropes, and I’m ready to battle hard,” said Prescott, R-Kingston. But Prescott later said the Senate was willing to consider some changes. For example, the House wants to require voters to present photo identification cards or sign affidavits and be photographed by election workers. The Senate version of the bill would let people sign affidavits without being photographed, but senators said Tuesday they’d be willing to consider the picture-taking provision if it was delayed until next year. House lawmakers also indicated they might consider allowing student IDs to be used, as the Senate wants, though they asked for language specifying that the cards must be issued by accredited schools.
If a voter ID bill fails to emerge from the state Legislature this year, supporters won’t have much trouble figuring out who to blame: their Republican “friends” in the House of Representatives. For perhaps lost in last week’s chaos of a Nazi salute and an insincere apology was the Republican-controlled chamber’s action on a bill to require voters to show a photo ID before getting a ballot. Specifically, it turned aside a Senate-approved bill that had earned the backing of Secretary of State William Gardner and the New Hampshire City & Town Clerks Association in favor of its own version that did not. And since Gov. John Lynch has made it clear he has no intention of permitting such a bill to pass without a veto fight – he already has won four veto showdowns over GOP-sponsored voter ID bills – every vote will count.
A voter identification bill that had the support of the Senate, town clerks and the secretary of state’s office is in jeopardy because of changes made yesterday by a House committee, said Sen. Russell Prescott, a Kingston Republican and the bill’s sponsor. The House Election Law Committee voted 13-7 to require photo identification at the polls months earlier than clerks say is feasible, and to disallow students to use their IDs to vote. The changes, if passed by the full House, would take effect immediately, for this year’s general election. Prescott’s bill pushed the start date to elections after Jan. 2013, to give voters and clerks time to get used to the new requirements. “I worked really hard with (clerks and state officials) to make a clean voter ID bill,” Prescott said yesterday. “We have a bill I think a lot of people support. I am saddened that this amendment has passed.”