AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 18 Low Avenue Concord, New Hampshire 03301 603-225-3080 www.ACLU-NH.org

DEVON CHAFFEE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

From: Gilles Bissonnette, Legal Director for the American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire To: The Honorable Members of the Election Law Committee of the New Hampshire House of Representatives Date: February 7, 2017 Re: ACLU-NH Opposition to HB372 I submit this testimony on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire (ACLU)—a nonpartisan, non-profit organization working to protect the rights in the United States and New Hampshire Constitutions, including the right to vote. HB372 changes the “residency” standard in RSA 21:6 to omit the phrase “for the indefinite future” and attempts to have this standard become the criteria to vote. As explained below, this bill raises serious concerns, as it imposes post-election costs on certain voters. This bill is also identical to HB1356 from last year, which was “lied on the table” in the Senate. This Bill Aims to Cause Certain Voters to, After Voting, Pay Moneys to the State in the Form of Motor Vehicle Fees. In making this change to the “residency” standard in our motor vehicle laws and linking this standard to voting, this bill would compel certain constitutionally-eligible voters who may have plans to leave New Hampshire sometime in the future to, within 60 days of voting, pay moneys to the State through car registration and driver’s license fees.1 In short, this bill acts as a post-election poll tax where, if such a person decides to exercise her constitutional right to vote, that person would now have 60 days to pay the State various motor vehicle fees. In so doing, this bill specifically targets persons who live in New Hampshire, but who may know they will be leaving sometime in the future—including hospital residents, military personnel, or professors who will be leaving New Hampshire in three years, or college students who know they will leave after graduation. These voters have a constitutional right to vote in New Hampshire.2 Under this bill, if such a voter does not obtain a New Hampshire driver’s license and car registration within 60 days of the election, that voter will have committed a crime.3 These costs may very well may chill these voters’ decision to vote. Indeed, one may attempt to use HB372, if enacted, to intimidate and harass student voters who are eligible to vote here by claiming—falsely—that if they moved to New Hampshire and they do not have a New Hampshire driver’s license or car registration, they have not declared legal “residency” and therefore cannot vote. This Bill Does Not Address a Conflict Between our Voting Laws and Court Decisions. When this bill was considered last year as HB1356, it was argued that this bill is a technical correction to address Newburger v. Peterson, 344 F. Supp. 559, 563 (D.N.H. 1972). This is incorrect. There, the Court correctly held that New Hampshire’s voting standard could not impose an “indefinite intention to remain” requirement because such a standard would disenfranchise constitutionally-eligible voters who live in New Hampshire and call it home, but RSA 259:88 (stating that the term “resident” for motor vehicle purposes is defined under RSA 21:6); RSA 261:45, I (a person has 60 days to register a car in New Hampshire after becoming a legal resident); RSA 263:35 (a person has 60 days to obtain a New Hampshire driver’s license after becoming e legal resident). 2 Newburger v. Peterson, 344 F. Supp. 559, 563 (D.N.H. 1972) (college students have a constitutional right to vote in New Hampshire where they live regardless of whether they intent to live in New Hampshire indefinitely). 3 See RSA 263:48. 1

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 18 Low Avenue Concord, New Hampshire 03301 603-225-3080

DEVON CHAFFEE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR www.ACLU-NH.org

who have plans to leave at some indefinite point in the future. Such an “indefinite intention to remain” voting standard would particularly disenfranchise, as explained above, hospital residents, military personnel, or professors who will be leaving New Hampshire in three years, or college students who know they will leave after graduation. No changes are needed to our voting laws to address Newburger because current law already addresses Newburger. Indeed, our domicile voting standard in RSA 654:1 already, in recognition of Newburger, does not contain an “indefinite intention to remain” standard. Rather, only our “residency” standard—which is different from our voting standard—uses this “indefinite intention to remain” standard. Rather, than merely reflect Newburger, this bill goes beyond it by imposing costs on certain voters who decide to exercise the franchise. For these reasons, we ask that the Committee deem HB372 “inexpedient to legislate.”