HB472
House · 2025 sessionRepublicanKilled in HouseProof of residency to vote
AI-generatedRequires voters lacking proof of residency such as a utility bill, lease, or deed to be referred to the supervisor of the checklist, who determines eligibility to vote and whose denial may be appealed to superior court.
requiring voters to prove domicile.Official record
Division of testimonyComputed by this site
489 submissionsAll 106 written submissions were individually written — no organized campaign detected.
Status
Killed in the House — Inexpedient to Legislate · March 26, 2025- ✓Introduced
- ✕House
- Senate
- Governor
- Law
Argument digest
AI-generatedfrom 106 of 106 written submissionsHB472 would require voters who lack a current address on their photo ID to present additional proof of domicile, such as a utility bill, lease, or deed, with the Supervisor of the Checklist empowered to judge sufficiency, and would eliminate provisional ballots. A small group of submitters supports the bill as an election-integrity and eligibility measure, while a much larger group opposes it as redundant, burdensome, and likely to disenfranchise registered voters, particularly students, renters, the elderly, and the homeless.
- Strengthens election integrity and voter eligibilitySupport14 of 106 reviewed
Supporters argue requiring proof of domicile ensures only voters with a genuine, established connection to a community decide its elections, and that this is a reasonable, common-sense requirement.
“HB 472 strengthens election integrity by requiring voters to prove domicile and eliminating provisional ballots. This ensures that only those with a legitimate, established connection to the community vote, preventing transient individuals from influencing local elections.”
— Richard Horowitz, Portsmouth · #455684 — read full submission →
“Common sense Requirement to determine voting eligibility and should be NH Law”
— SHAWN BARDONG, PORTSMOUTH · #457220 — read full submission →
- Eliminating provisional ballots removes uncertaintySupport3 of 106 reviewed
Some supporters specifically favor the bill's elimination of provisional ballots, arguing that voting without immediate verification introduces uncertainty and potential for fraud.
- Registered voters risk being turned away for lacking documentsOppose24 of 106 reviewed
Submitters argue that voters who do not carry a lease, utility bill, or similar document with them would be disenfranchised on election day despite already being registered and showing photo ID.
“This new requirement would mean that voters who do not have their current address on their identification would need additional documents to acquire a ballot – documents like a lease, car registration, or utility bill that they likely do not carry with them every day”
— Deborah Leavitt, Dover · #450131 — read full submission →
“having to produce proof of domicile at the time of voting would be very difficult for most of us given that in this age of paperless billing, I have no physical bills.”
— Anne Onion, Gilmanton · #453176 — read full submission →
- Redundant with proof already given at registrationOppose22 of 106 reviewed
Submitters, including several current and former Supervisors of the Checklist, argue that domicile is already verified when a voter registers, making a second proof requirement at the polls unnecessary duplication.
“This is totally unnecessary. I have been a supervisor of the checklist for 17 years. We vet the domicile of every voter when they register to vote. Stop adding stupid legislation to our a system that works well.”
— Jeanne Ludt, Amherst · #432992 — read full submission →
“Voters have proven their residency to become registered. They have provided documentation!”
— Katherine Anderson, Hancock · #425808 — read full submission →
- Characterized as voter suppressionOppose23 of 106 reviewed
Many submitters frame the bill broadly as an intentional effort to suppress turnout or discourage eligible voters, rather than a genuine integrity measure.
“Hell no. This is blatant voter suppression. If you want to stop election fraud, invest in tech to prevent hacking systems and increase security for ballot boxes.”
— Rhianna Cardone, Nashua · #455058 — read full submission →
“Another voter suppression bill, another stumbling block placed before voters.”
— Francis Oscadal, Lebanon · #448158 — read full submission →
- Disproportionately burdens vulnerable groupsOppose15 of 106 reviewed
Submitters argue the requirement would fall hardest on students, renters, the elderly, homeless individuals, and others who may lack traditional proof-of-address documents.
“Many students consider their college or university location as their primary residence, but may lack New Hampshire identification due to ties to family and family vehicles.”
— Debra Bowie, Keene · #455579 — read full submission →
“This goes after homeless people. Where is your humanity? This bill is a blatant attempt to suppress voting rights.”
— Louise Taylor, Tamworth · #447005 — read full submission →
- Discretion given to Supervisor of the Checklist is too vagueOppose12 of 106 reviewed
Submitters argue that letting an individual election official decide whether a voter's qualifications are 'established' is a subjective process that could lead to biased or inconsistent decisions and unfairly turned-away voters.
- Would slow down polling places and burden poll workersOppose9 of 106 reviewed
Submitters, including poll workers themselves, argue the added verification step would create longer lines and significantly increase the time needed to check voters in.
- No evidence of a voter fraud problem to justify itOppose8 of 106 reviewed
Submitters argue New Hampshire has little to no documented voter fraud, so the added burden addresses a problem that does not meaningfully exist.
- Superior court appeal is impractical before an electionOppose3 of 106 reviewed
A smaller number of submitters point out that the bill's appeal mechanism to superior court could not realistically be completed before the election is over, leaving a rejected voter with no real recourse.
Generated by claude-sonnet-5 (claude code agent) on Jul 22, 2026. Quotes are verbatim excerpts, verified against the cited submission before publication. Summaries are AI interpretation of the record, not part of it.
The record · every submission as filed
489 submissions| Expand | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Denise Clark for Myself Milford HB 472 is onerous beyond belief. I am a native NH retiree who has lived in the same domicile for nearly 50 years. Under HB 472, I would have to prove my domicile EVERY time I vote. That is ludicrous. Just another anti-voter tactic. | Milford | Oppose | 237 | Feb 11, 2025 | |
Julie Laracy for Myself Conway This is over the top! Please oppose this bill as it will make voting day so much more difficult. I work the polls and they are so fine the way they are. | Conway | Oppose | 154 | Feb 11, 2025 | |
Elizabeth Kautz for Myself Marlborough I support the right to vote for ALL citizens and I believe this bill will undermine that right by making voting more difficult for certain eligible voters. | Marlborough | Oppose | 155 | Feb 11, 2025 | |
phillip mulligan for Myself lebanon I oppose more barriers to voting. | lebanon | Oppose | 34 | Feb 11, 2025 | |
Jessica LaMontagne for Myself Dover Just another means of voter suppression. | Dover | Oppose | 41 | Feb 11, 2025 | |
Michelle Hulbert for Myself Peterborough Our Provisional Ballot system works. Don't mess with it! | Peterborough | Oppose | 64 | Feb 11, 2025 | |
GERIANNE BAILEY for Myself Stoddard I oppose this bill. | Stoddard | Oppose | 19 | Feb 11, 2025 | |
Paula Ryan for Myself Derry I support this Bill. | Derry | Support | 20 | Feb 11, 2025 | |
Sonia Statires for Myself Hampton I support this house bill. | Hampton | Support | 26 | Feb 11, 2025 | |
Deborah Bruss for Myself Concord I oppose this bill because the current law, which requires a person to show a voter I.D., should be proof enough, even if they have not updated their address on the ID. By requiring further proof and leaving the decision to the Supervisor of the Checklist, voters who do not have the necessary proof may walk away from their polling place. Or the Supervisor of the Checklist might make a biased decision. Furthermore, there are other situations where a voter might not have the required documents, such as someone who has moved into the state but does not drive or have their name on utility bills or other forms of proof. | Concord | Oppose | 623 | Feb 11, 2025 | |
SHAWN BARDONG for Myself PORTSMOUTH HB 472, requiring voters to prove domicile and eliminates the concept of a “provisional ballot” Common sense Requirement to determine voting eligibility and should be NH Law | PORTSMOUTH | Support | 179 | Feb 11, 2025 | |
John Burke for Myself Hudson As a voter in my town, I have to prove I live here. Provisional ballots need to be eliminated. Either you are in the precinct and can prove it or not. Very simple. | Hudson | Support | 165 | Feb 11, 2025 | |
Deborah Minassian for Myself North Hampton I support this bill. . | North Hampton | Support | 25 | Feb 11, 2025 | |
Ruth Leosz for Myself Salem I support this bill | Salem | Support | 20 | Feb 11, 2025 | |
mike Fraysse for Myself Epsom This bill requires voters who don't have a current address on their photo ID present utility bills, lease deeds, etc to prove a voter's address which the Supervisor of the Checklist can evaluate and determine if qualifications have been met. This is onerous. Voters don't carry these documents around. Having the Supervisor of he Checklist do this evaluation is a vague process and can lead to valid registered voters being turned away due to an opinion of an election official. This law should not be passed. | Epsom | Oppose | 521 | Feb 11, 2025 | |
Karen Campbell for Myself Epsom This bill requires voters who don't have a current address on their photo ID present utility bills, lease deeds, etc to prove a voter's address which the Supervisor of the Checklist can evaluate and determine if qualifications have been met. This is onerous. Voters don't carry these documents around. Having the Supervisor of he Checklist do this evaluation is a vague process and can lead to valid registered voters being turned away due to an opinion of an election official. This law should not be passed. | Epsom | Oppose | 521 | Feb 11, 2025 | |
Eli Stephanou for Myself Portsmouth In a season of stupid bills, this may be one of the most incredibly stupid ones proposed. As one already has to provide identification to vote, requiring additional documentation is both a waste of time and an infringement on the basic right to vote. Even structurally this is a foolish bill as the voter would have no time to actually appeal to superior court before the election was over, thus making this even more flawed. Trash this bill. | Portsmouth | Oppose | 447 | Feb 11, 2025 | |
Susan DeRoy for Myself New Durham I support his bill | New Durham | Support | 19 | Feb 11, 2025 | |
Irene Mcgonagle for Myself Danville I fully support this bill! Election integrity is of utmost importance | Danville | Support | 69 | Feb 11, 2025 | |
Albert Burroughs for Myself Hollis This bill would restrict my rights as a voter. It would create another obstacle to a free and unbiased election. The current system is working why are you trying to change it? I oppose this bill. | Hollis | Oppose | 198 | Feb 11, 2025 | |
William Yacopucci for Myself Franklin As a former Supervisor of the Checklist, I can tell you that this is absolutely not necessary. There is already a process in place to verify the person's residence. | Franklin | Oppose | 165 | Feb 11, 2025 | |
Kenneth Ackerson for Myself Franklin As a former Supervisor of the Checklist, I can tell you that this is absolutely not necessary. There is already a process in place to verify the person's residence. | Franklin | Oppose | 165 | Feb 11, 2025 | |
Judith Ackerson for Myself Franklin As a former Supervisor of the Checklist, I can tell you that this is absolutely not necessary. There is already a process in place to verify the person's residence. | Franklin | Oppose | 165 | Feb 11, 2025 | |
William Maddocks for Myself Amherst Ask the supervisors of the check list wat they think of this proposed bill, Answers would range from unnecessary, to a waste of time to why are you trying to disenfranchise certain voters. Next time you have an idea to try to reduce participation in NH voting so take a walk and get fresh air. You may be exposing yourself to too many conspiracy theories which paints a paranoid world where the "other" must be prevented from full agency in our elections. This is a false idea and encouraging s and enabling all to vote with ease is what you really want to do not making up sillines like this bill that wastes everyone's time | Amherst | Oppose | 626 | Feb 11, 2025 | |
Jay St Jacques for Myself Gilford I strongly support this bill. | Gilford | Support | 29 | Feb 11, 2025 |