HB288

House · 2025 sessionRepublicanSigned into law

Limiting early absentee ballot requests

As amended, this bill limits how far in advance absentee ballots may be requested, restricting UOCAVA federal post card applications to no earlier than January of the election year and other applications to no earlier than 6 months before the election.

(New Title) limiting how far in advance of an election an absentee ballot may be requested.Official record

Elections

Division of testimonyComputed by this site

646 submissions

Neutral 0

Hatched = form letter ··

Status

Signed into law · June 6, 2025

✓Introduced
✓House
✓Senate
✓Governor
✓Law

Sponsors, hearings & roll-call votes

Argument digest

from 233 of 258 written submissions

HB288 would require voters to request an absentee ballot at least six months before an election. A small number of supporters argue this would reduce opportunity for absentee-ballot misuse and give officials more time to verify eligibility. The overwhelming majority of submitters oppose the bill, arguing a six-month advance requirement is impossible for voters to plan around given unpredictable illness, travel, and family or work emergencies, and characterizing it as a thinly veiled voter-suppression measure given New Hampshire's already-restrictive voting laws and lack of evidence of fraud.

Restricts absentee voting to prevent misuse and verify eligibilitySupport8 of 233 reviewed
Supporters argue the current absentee ballot system is prone to abuse and that an earlier request deadline would limit exposure to misuse and give officials more time to confirm voter eligibility; some offer general support without further elaboration.
- “The absentee system has become overly abused and has opened our election systems to fraud. This legislation will rightly restrict absentee ballots for those who truly need it such as our military members.”
  — Joseph Abasciano, Milton · #395680 — read full submission →
- “Limits exposure of the absentee process to misuse and provides more time to verify requirements.”
  — Steve Frechette, Nashua · #401103 — read full submission →
Six-month advance requirement is unrealistic and unpredictableOppose200 of 233 reviewed · 15 via form letter
Opponents argue voters cannot know six months ahead of time whether illness, injury, travel, or a family or work emergency will prevent them from voting in person, so the requirement would effectively eliminate absentee voting for many who need it.
- “Had I known six months before I became ill and fell, severely injuring myself, that I had to get all my affairs in order because I would be confined to home for over a month, maybe I could have done that. However, that's not the nature of illness or accident in our lives.”
  — Christine Hague, Weare · #392784 — read full submission →
- “They would need a foolproof way to know ahead of time that they will be unavailable due to a chemo treatment for a cancer that hasn't been detected yet.”
  — Carol Linstid, AMHERST · #389775 — read full submission →
Amounts to intentional voter suppressionOppose110 of 233 reviewed · 15 via form letter
Opponents describe the bill as a deliberate, often partisan effort to reduce turnout and disenfranchise eligible voters under the guise of election administration.
- “This bill proposes to make voting significantly more difficult for everyone in New Hampshire. It, and HB418 are BLATANT attempts at voter suppression and disenfranchisement, and it is shameful that these bills are even being considered.”
  — Kavita Finn, Bedford · #388284 — read full submission →
- “HB288 is an outrageous attempt to prevent registered voters from accessing absentee ballots.”
  — John Petit, Litchfield · #399353 — read full submission →
No evidence of fraud justifies further restrictionOppose55 of 233 reviewed · 12 via form letter
Opponents note that New Hampshire's voting laws are already among the most restrictive in the country and that officials from both parties confirm voter fraud is not a problem, so additional restrictions on absentee voting are unnecessary.
- “New Hampshire is already one of the most restrictive states in the country when it comes to voter laws. We already require IDs to vote and make it difficult for absentee voting.”
  — Timothy Doxzon, Nashua · #401575 — read full submission →
- “The Secretary of State and many officials from both parties confirm that voter fraud is not an issue in New Hampshire.”
  — form letter, submitted 24 times · #392549 — read full submission →
Disproportionately harms specific groups of votersOppose90 of 233 reviewed
Opponents argue the requirement would fall hardest on the elderly and disabled, military service members and their families, college students, and workers with unpredictable schedules such as nurses, truckers, and traveling professionals.
- “Many voters, particularly those who are elderly, disabled, or living in remote areas, may face challenges in determining their need for an absentee ballot that far in advance.”
  — Ashley Hartson, Bow · #400421 — read full submission →
- “This is clearly an attempt to restrict voting from college students. But it also can impact long haul truckers, traveling nurses, construction workers, military personnel, and anyone who travels for business.”
  — Sylvia Olson, Portsmouth · #398468 — read full submission →
Government should make voting easier, not harderOppose50 of 233 reviewed
Opponents frame the bill as contrary to democratic values and voting rights generally, with some invoking constitutional protections or New Hampshire's 'Live Free or Die' identity.
- “Voting is a Constitutional Right and much like the warning in the 2nd amendment - it Shall Not be infringed.”
  — Cynthia Couture, MOULTONBOROUGH · #394085 — read full submission →
- “Live Free or Die includes the ability to live free to vote how you please. New Hampshire does not need further restrictions; that makes our land less free.”
  — Liam Lavoie, Derry · #401477 — read full submission →
Bill mechanics and text raise additional practical concernsOppose5 of 233 reviewed
A small number of opponents point to specific mechanical problems, such as the bill summary appearing to conflict with its actual text, or the lack of a remedy if a mailed ballot is lost during the waiting period.
- “The full wording states that requests must be made within 6 months of the election”
  — Arleen Andreozzi, Hampton · #403449 — read full submission →
- “What happens if you lose the ballot during the 6 months prior to the vote? You are not allowed to get another ballot 2 weeks before the vote so your voting rights have been denied once again.”
  — Merilynn Bourne, CORNISH · #395794 — read full submission →

Generated by claude-sonnet-5 (claude code agent) on Jul 20, 2026. Quotes are verbatim excerpts, verified against the cited submission before publication. Summaries are AI interpretation of the record, not part of it.

Form-letter campaigns

27 of 258 written submissions (10%)

27 submissions match 2 shared templates; 231 are individually written.

Opposing Absentee Ballot Timeline RestrictionAI-generatedOppose15 submissions on this bill
The bill is argued to be voter suppression because requiring absentee ballot requests six months in advance would prevent many eligible voters from casting their ballots.
The letter · submitted 15 times
HB288 is a nonsensical bill. Requiring voters to request absentee ballots 6 months prior to an election would basically eliminate many absentee ballots. This bill is voter suppression as it would result in many voters not being able to vote at all. Most voters do not plan trips out of state, whether business-related or vacations, that far in advance. Likewise, voters can become ill or disabled within a 6 month window. Other examples of instances requiring an absentee ballot well short of 6 months notice are numerous. NH has a safe absentee ballot system and one of the most restrictive in the country. Calls for further restrictions are purely voter suppression tactics.
Support for Accessible Voting LawsAI-generatedOppose12 submissions on this bill · 24 across 4 bills
The template argues that existing voter laws are already restrictive and that proposed changes would make voting more difficult rather than improving election integrity.
The letter · submitted 24 times
New Hampshire is already one of the most restrictive states in the country when it comes to voter laws. The Secretary of State and many officials from both parties confirm that voter fraud is not an issue in New Hampshire. We need to enter the 21st century and make voting easier NOT more difficult! Our nation is based on free and fair elections ~ restrictions do not make this either!!!

Detected by text-similarity clustering — that part is arithmetic. The name describing each template is written by a model.

The record · every submission as filed