House GOP moves to block impact of federal election reform
May 19—CONCORD — House Republican leaders on Wednesday moved to blunt the impact of a congressional election reform bill, introducing the prospect of separate federal and state elections on the same day.
The House Elections Laws committee voted 11-8 in favor of a proposal to require that all state and county-level elections follow New Hampshire election procedures and requirements, after a partisan public hearing that drew plenty of supporters and opponents.
The amendment, which Secretary of State Bill Gardner's office embraced, was attached to an unrelated Senate-passed bill (SB 89) containing state election law changes.
Deputy Secretary of State David Scanlan said that if both the federal and state bills passed, New Hampshire could have to hold two different elections on the same day.
"One option is we have different ballots and different checklists on the day of the election," Scanlan said.
All GOP members on the panel were for the idea; all Democrats opposed it.
Committee Chairwoman Barbara Griffin, R-Goffstown, said the amendment was warranted because the federal bill known as the "For the People Act" would weaken New Hampshire's voter ID law, extend elections 10 days after the vote and mandate online voter registration.
"There is a direct assault on the sovereignty of New Hampshire and its ability to conduct its own elections," Griffin said.
State Rep. David Cote, D-Nashua, a former chairman of the panel, said the state bill would run afoul of the Supremacy Clause in the U.S. Constitution, which holds that when in conflict, federal laws supersede state statutes.
"Even separating the two elections could be unconstitutional and would be extremely costly for both the state and local communities," Cote said.
The federal bill already has cleared the U.S. House with the backing of New Hampshire Reps. Chris Pappas and Annie Kuster, both Democrats.
A largely identical Senate version of the bill (HR1) has had a public hearing. New Hampshire Sens. Maggie Hassan and Jeanne Shaheen, both Democrats, have said they likely would vote for it.
"HR1 dismantles the successful election processes we've fine-tuned over centuries, inherently undermining voter confidence statewide. While our Secretary of State and several town clerks have openly expressed their well-founded opposition to HR1, our own federal delegation remains silent on the rationale of their support," said GOP State Chairman Stephen Stepanek.
But Democratic Party Chairman Raymond Buckley condemned the proposed state response as "disgraceful, unconstitutional voter disenfranchisement, plain and simple."
Gardner's office 'speaks up'
Last month during the U.S. Senate's public hearing, Gardner testified against the federal bill.
"This would change every area of our election process, and really it would not be recognizable in the future as it would be today," Scanlan said.
"The election process has to work for all voters. This is a delicate balance between making it easy to vote while at the same time making sure the vote is secure."
At Wednesday's hearing, Rep. Russell Muirhead, D-Hanover, questioned whether Gardner has lost the objectivity that has been the hallmark of his tenure as the state's top election official.
"Is there a concern that the position on this legislation would compromise the nonpartisan nature of the Secretary of State's Office?" Muirhead asked Scanlan.
Scanlan answered, "If we don't speak up, we aren't doing our job."
Cordell Johnston, a lobbyist with the New Hampshire Municipal Association, said the change would require "insane" changes locally, especially for local officials working in very small towns.
"I think we are in an impossible situation. I would urge the committee to try to work with the congressional delegation to make it more workable," Johnston said.
The full House will vote on the measure when it meets June 3-4 at the New Hampshire Sportsplex in Bedford.
