The United States Senate failed this week to advance H.R. 1, the “For the People Act,” which would make major changes to the election processes in all 50 states. That is good news, because, although there may be many good things in the bill, there are some that would make elections in New Hampshire impossible. However, efforts to move some version of the bill forward are continuing in Washington, and that is cause for continued worry. 

NHMA and some local election officials have had conversations with members of New Hampshire’s congressional delegation, and we believe they understand our concerns and are working to address them; but it is important that they continue to hear from local officials. The bill’s supporters no doubt have good intentions, but some of the bill’s details are frightening. 

H.R. 1’s most troubling feature is a requirement that polls be open for 15 consecutive days leading up to a federal election, not less than 10 hours per day, allowing for voting “in the same manner as voting is allowed on [election day].” This means that every moderator, clerk, and supervisor of the checklist (because same-day registration must also be available during early voting) must be at the polling place for 15 consecutive days. In a mid-term election year, election officials would spend at least 30 days at the polls (15 for the primary and 15 for the general election); in a presidential election year it would be 45 days (15 more for the presidential primary). 

Needless to say, no one is going to do that. Thus, if this bill were to pass, New Hampshire would be headed for an electoral disaster, with election officials either resigning en masse or choosing to violate federal law (and thus, presumably, rendering the elections invalid). We understand that a proposed amendment to the bill would exempt jurisdictions with fewer than 3,000 registered voters from the early voting requirement. That does little good, as it would still leave about 60-70 New Hampshire municipalities (and thus the entire state) facing this catastrophe. 

The early voting requirement is only the most alarming piece of the bill. There are many more. For example, the bill requires that polling places for early voting be “located on campuses of institutions of higher education in the state.” If you have a college in your town, you must move your polling place to the college. (It is unclear what happens if the college refuses to provide a location.) But it also requires that every voter be notified by mail and telephone if the voter is assigned to a polling place that is different from the previous federal election—so election officials will need to call every registered voter in town to inform them that the polling place is moving to the college campus. 

There are additional problems. An absentee ballot application must be mailed to every registered voter before every federal election, even though we know that only a small fraction of them will be used. (Even the election officials who will be spending 15 days at the polls will receive an absentee ballot application.) The bill requires the town to pay the return postage for all of these (mostly unused) applications—although we are told, thankfully, that a proposed amendment would eliminate that requirement and have the U.S. Postal Service absorb the cost. Absentee ballots must be accepted up to ten days after the election, meaning there will be no results until that time—or later, because the bill also requires that voters be given ten days to cure a defect with an absentee ballot, such as a failure to sign it. (A proposed amendment reduces these time periods.) 

The bill also requires that 16- and 17-year-olds be allowed to register, although they are not eligible to vote. It is not hard to imagine the complications and needless additional work that will be created by having people on the checklist who are not old enough to vote—from wasting the town clerk’s time in sending absentee ballot applications to wasting time at the polls while the ballot clerks check everyone’s birth date. 

Although the bill in its current form has no chance of passing anytime soon, federal lawmakers are pursuing various compromises that remove what they consider to be the more controversial provisions of H.R. 1. The problem is that from what we have heard, all of those compromises still include the 15-day early voting requirement. None of these proposals should even be discussed until, at the very least, the early voting requirement is eliminated—or until an exemption for municipalities with under 100,000 registered voters (or simply an exemption for New Hampshire) is added. 

Again, our U.S. senators and representatives have heard our concerns and are taking them seriously, but it is essential to keep emphasizing how dangerous this legislation is. (And again, we are talking only about some parts of the bill, not the entire thing.) Please contact their offices with your concerns: 

Senator Jeanne Shaheen

Senator Maggie Hassan

Representative Chris Pappas (1^st Congressional District)

Representative Ann McLane Kuster (2^nd Congressional District)