EAIElectoral Access Index

The statute establishes the ballot law commission with clear structural independence safeguards: appointment by three separate branches (speaker, senate president, governor with council consent), balanced two-party composition (one from each major party per appointer), fixed staggered 4-year terms (with initial staggering to prevent wholesale turnover), and an explicit prohibition on current elected officials and election officials. These procedural protections are exhaustively enumerated in the statute itself, not delegated to administrative discretion.

“There shall be a ballot law commission consisting of 5 members. Two members shall be appointed by the speaker of the house of representatives, one from each of the 2 major political parties in the state based on votes cast for governor in the most recent state general election. Two members shall be appointed by the president of the senate, one from each of the 2 major political parties in the state based on votes cast for governor in the most recent state general election. One member shall be appointed by the governor with the advice and consent of the council, and shall be a person particularly qualified by experience in election procedure. No person shall be appointed to the commission who holds an elected office or who is an election official. The terms of all commissioners shall be for 4 years”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: While the section references the constitutional provision for age (Article 11, Part First), the section itself is statute (Ch. 654), not constitution. The criterion asks whether age and residency requirements are SET in the constitution, not merely referenced. This section applies those constitutional age requirements to UOCAVA voters but does not itself constitute a constitutional setting of the requirement. The residency requirements (domicile prior to service/departure) are set by statute here, not constitution.

The section provides statutory codification of the disqualification criterion (conviction for election-related bribery or intimidation under RSA 659:40) and duration (permanent/forever). It establishes a defined restoration procedure via supreme court petition with notice to the attorney general. However, the restoration mechanism is judicial discretion rather than statutory enumeration of restoration criteria, yielding a score of 2 rather than 3.

“Any person convicted of bribery or intimidation relating to elections under RSA 659:40 shall thereafter be forever disqualified from exercising the right to vote, except that the supreme court may, on notice to the attorney general, restore the privileges of a voter to any person who may have forfeited them by conviction of such offenses.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: While the section does provide that voting rights *may* be restored via supreme court petition, it lacks the procedural codification required by the criterion: there are no statutory deadlines, no eligibility standards for restoration, no definition of what constitutes adequate grounds, and no automatic restoration mechanism. The restoration authority is entirely discretionary (permissive 'may'), leaving the procedure to judicial discretion rather than statute.

The statute explicitly requires presentation of identity proof before admission to the voting enclosure, and paragraph II exhaustively enumerates the acceptable forms of valid photo identification (driver's licenses, state ID cards, military IDs, passports, and qualified student IDs) with specific requirements (name conformity, photograph, expiration date limits with exceptions for voters 65+). The requirement, forms, and exemptions are all set in statute rather than left to administrative discretion.

“The voter, unless challenged as provided for in RSA 659:27 through 659:33, shall then be asked to present proof of his or her identity meeting the requirements of paragraph II.”

The statute exhaustively enumerates all acceptable forms of photo identification (driver's licenses from any state, state ID cards, armed services cards, passports/passcards, and qualifying student IDs) with specific criteria for each form, including expiration date rules. The list is set in statute with no delegation to administrator discretion to add or remove forms.

“The following forms of identification bearing a photograph of the voter shall satisfy the identification requirements of paragraph I: (1) A driver's license issued by any state or the federal government. (2) An identification card issued under RSA 260:21, RSA 260:21-a, or RSA 260:21-b or a nondriver's identification card issued by the motor vehicles division, department, agency, or office of any other state. (3) A United States armed services identification card. (4) A United States passport or passcard. (5) A valid student identification card if: (A) The card is issued by: (i) A college, university, or career school in New Hampshire and approved to operate or licensed to operate in New Hampshire. (ii) A public high school in New Hampshire. (iii) A nonpublic high school in New Hampshire accredited by a private school accrediting agency that is recognized by the department of education. (iv) Dartmouth College. (v) A college or university operated by the university system of New Hampshire or the community college system of New Hampshire. (B) The card has either an expiration date or an issuance date that has not been exceeded by a period of more than 5 years”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 657:15 addresses the procedural mechanics of sending absentee ballots after verification—delivery methods, timing, and list management. It does not address voter identification requirements or the availability of free alternative IDs. The criterion concerns ID policy, which is outside the scope of this absentee ballot delivery statute.

N.H. Rev. Stat. § 659:13-b establishes a statutorily defined cure procedure for voters without photo ID at the polls: the voter may execute an affidavit of religious exemption in a prescribed statutory form, swearing to their identity and religious objection to photo identification. The statute enumerates the exact form, required attestation by an election officer, and penalties for false statements, providing clear procedural guidance for poll workers and voters alike.

“The affidavit of religious exemption shall be in the following form: AFFIDAVIT OF RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION Name: ____________________ Domicile Address: ____________________ Date of birth: _______________ I hereby swear or affirm that because of my religious beliefs, I object to having my photograph taken and that I do not possess a form of identification that meets the requirements of the election laws of this state showing my photograph.”

No matching sections in corpus.

The statute explicitly establishes that UOCAVA voter absentee ballot applications must be entered into the statewide centralized voter registration database without delay upon receipt, with specific deadlines enumerated in subsections I–VII (e.g., applications received prior to the Monday before a primary must be entered by that Monday; applications received between that Monday and 45 days before general election entered on day received; applications after 45 days entered without delay). These registration deadlines are statutorily defined and tied to election-specific dates, not left to administrative discretion.

“Upon receipt of a properly executed application for an absentee ballot from a UOCAVA voter as defined in RSA 652:16-b, whether the form supplied by the secretary of state, the federal official post card form, or a written statement containing the information required by RSA 657:4, I, a town or city clerk shall retain the application and, without delay and except as provided in subparagraph (b), enter the application in the statewide centralized voter registration database.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses only voter education and public information about identity proof requirements under RSA 659:13. It does not enumerate or describe any registration methods (in-person, mail, online, motor-voter, automatic, or same-day). The criterion requires exhaustive statutory enumeration of available registration methods themselves, which is absent from this section.

The statute establishes a clear, statutorily-grounded cure procedure: when registration is rejected (for any reason, including incompleteness), supervisors must notify the applicant in writing within 7 days and state the reason. This explicit notification requirement with a defined timeline allows the applicant to understand what was deficient and take corrective action. The procedure is enumerated in the statute, not left to administrative discretion.

“If the supervisors decide not to add the name of the applicant to the checklist, they shall send notification to the applicant in writing within 7 days stating the reason for that denial.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section governs the preservation and retention of absentee ballot affidavits, rejected ballots, and voter registration materials after an election, but it does not codify a voter's right to challenge a rejected or removed registration. The statute addresses record-keeping timelines and procedures for destruction of election materials, not the substantive right or procedure for a voter to contest rejection or removal from the registration rolls.

This statute explicitly defines the procedural criteria for removing voters from the roll due to death: it specifies the 30-day letter requirement, the mechanism for response, the timeline for removal absent response, and the confirmation process. The rule is grounded in statute (N.H. Rev. Stat. § 654:37-a), not delegated to regulation or administrative discretion.

“If the supervisors of the checklist learn of the death of a voter but do not receive notice as outlined in RSA 654:37, they shall mail to the last known address of the voter a 30-day letter specifically for updating the checklist upon the death of a voter. Such letter shall include the contact information for the supervisors of the checklist to which a response may be sent. If there is no response within 30 days, the supervisors will remove that voter's name from the checklist. If there is a response confirming the death within 30 days, the supervisors may remove the voter's name upon receipt of the confirmation of death.”

The statute mandates a pre-removal notice ('shall mail') to the voter's last known address, provides a defined 30-day cure period during which a voter may respond, specifies contact information must be included, and establishes clear removal procedures contingent on either expiration of the cure period or confirmation of death. All procedural elements—statutory grounding, enumeration, and cure opportunity—are present.

“they shall mail to the last known address of the voter a 30-day letter specifically for updating the checklist upon the death of a voter. Such letter shall include the contact information for the supervisors of the checklist to which a response may be sent. If there is no response within 30 days, the supervisors will remove that voter's name from the checklist. If there is a response confirming the death within 30 days, the supervisors may remove the voter's name upon receipt of the confirmation of death.”

The statute mandates a centralized voter database and requires 'safeguards' to prevent erroneous removal of voter records, but does not enumerate specific security requirements (encryption, access logs, breach notification procedures) or establish a statutory cure/notification regime. The word 'safeguards' is vague and delegates implementation to administrative discretion without statutory specification of what those safeguards must be.

“The system shall contain safeguards to ensure that the names of properly registered voters are not removed in error.”

No matching sections in corpus.

The statute codifies in clear, enumerated terms both the right to assistance (for voters declaring need under oath) and the rules governing who may assist: either election inspectors or a person of the voter's choosing, with explicit exclusions (employer or union official). The procedure is set in statute, not left to administrative discretion, and the eligible categories of assistants are exhaustively defined.

“Any voter who declares to the moderator under oath that said voter needs assistance marking his or her ballot shall, upon the voter's choice and request after the moderator has informed the voter of the accessible voting options that are available at the polling place, receive the assistance of one or both of the inspectors of election detailed for that purpose by the moderator or of a person of the voter's choice provided that the person is not the voter's employer or union official.”

No matching sections in corpus.

The statute establishes a floor (no early closing) but delegates the foundational hours to the 'warrant' and RSA 659:3, neither of which is quoted here. The section does not itself set opening or closing hours by statute; it only constrains local variation around hours set elsewhere. This leaves the primary determination to warrant authority and cross-referenced provisions, not to the statute itself.

“Except as provided in RSA 659:3, in all state elections, the voters present at the polling place may vote to keep the polls open until a later hour but may not vote to close the polls at an earlier hour than that prescribed in the warrant.”

This section addresses only the rejection and documentation procedure when a moderator determines an absentee voter is ineligible—it specifies reasons for rejection and recording requirements. It does not codify the full mail-in voting procedure: application requirements, application deadlines, return deadlines, signature verification standards, or any cure process for rejected ballots. The section tells election officials what to do with a rejected ballot but does not provide voters a defined pathway to cure defects or appeal rejection decisions. Critical procedural elements remain absent.

“if the moderator finds that the absentee voter is not entitled to vote, the moderator shall not open the envelope containing the ballot and shall mark across the face of the envelope the reason the ballot is rejected, such as "rejected as not a voter" "voted in person," "affidavit improperly executed," "not signed by proper person," or whatever the reason is and shall record next to the name of the absentee voter on the clerk's list of absentee voter applicants prepared pursuant to RSA 657:15 the word "rejected" and the reason for the rejection.”

This statute directly codifies multiple elements of the absentee voting framework: it specifies eligible absentee voter categories (absent uniform services voters, temporarily absent voters outside the U.S., federal ballot only voters), defines the valid application method and forms, establishes temporal rules for requests and validity, and addresses treatment of requests across elections. The framework is set in statute rather than delegated to administrative discretion.

“The federal official post card form as provided in RSA 654:20 for simultaneous voter registration application and absentee ballot application shall be valid at any time for voter registration by a person qualified to vote pursuant to RSA 654:3 as an absent uniform services voter, a temporarily absent voter residing outside the United States, or a federal ballot only voter domiciled outside the United States. An absentee ballot request on this post card or in any other form received on or after January 1 of each year shall be valid through December 31 of the same year for all state and municipal elections to be held within that year, subject to the request of the voter and the eligibility of the voter.”