Legislative hearings often focus on policy language and process, but behind every bill, there are real people navigating complex lives and systems. During this session, I spent many hours preparing testimony aimed at bridging that gap by translating administrative details into the lived experience of voters across New Hampshire.

This session, I have had the opportunity to testify on 12 separate bills before both the House and Senate Election Law Committees. The bills ranged from creating a single-ballot system in New Hampshire and establishing an independent redistricting commission, to eliminating student IDs as valid identification at the polls and redefining what it means to be a “citizen” of New Hampshire for voting purposes.

Many of these bills shared a common undertone: a concern that New Hampshire’s elections are not sufficiently secure and may be vulnerable to interference. Yet despite this newfound loud cry of interference, there is no evidence of widespread, or even localized, voter fraud in our state. While many proposals were framed as safeguards, several would ultimately make it harder for eligible voters to participate, transforming a largely theoretical and non-existent problem into a real barrier to access.

One bill, HB 1600, which I testified in support of, passed the House with sweeping bipartisan support. This bill requires the Division of Motor Vehicles to provide the opportunity to register to vote when residents apply for or renew a driver’s license or non-driver identification card. Sponsored by a Democrat and co-sponsored by a Republican, the bill’s bipartisan backing strengthened its chances of moving forward. HB 1600 brings New Hampshire closer to modernizing voter access by meeting people where they already are. As I stated in my testimony, “HB 1600 strengthens our democracy by promoting citizen participation. Our elections are only as representative as the number of eligible persons who can realistically access the process. DMV registration, paired with same-day registration, ensures the greatest number of qualified voters can take part in free and fair elections.” The advancement of this bill represents a meaningful step toward expanding participation.

Another bill I supported, HB 1201, would have required certain political committees to disclose the identity of their donors. Currently, some nonprofit organizations can contribute significant funds to political campaigns without public disclosure. This can result in substantial financial influence occurring without voters knowing who is behind it.

HB 1201 aimed to strengthen public trust by applying transparency standards consistently, regardless of political ideology. I offered testimony drawing on arguments from across the political spectrum, emphasizing that transparency benefits voters of all viewpoints. Despite these efforts, the bill was ultimately killed in committee, a reminder that proposals focused on disclosure and accountability often face significant
resistance.

I also testified in opposition to several bills. One of the most notable was HB 1520, which sought to redefine citizenship for voting purposes, while introducing an oath of allegiance to the state. The proposal raised concerns ranging from confusing terminology, such as the concept of proving one is a “citizen of New Hampshire,” to an estimated fiscal impact of at least $2.5 million. 

The bill reflected a recurring pattern this session: proposals that would increase administrative burden and cost in the name of election security without clear evidence of a corresponding problem. In a state where elections are often decided by small margins, even modest barriers can have meaningful consequences. Following a public hearing that drew significant opposition, the sponsor ultimately withdrew the bill, but not before remarking that “it's embarrassing the lack of civics understanding that those comments reflect.” The conversation surrounding this bill highlighted how differently lawmakers and advocates sometimes assess the balance between access and security. 

Another bill I opposed, HB 323, advanced through the Senate Election Law Committee. This bill requires presentation of government-issued photographic identification to vote and removes student IDs from the list of acceptable forms of identification at the polls. This change creates a disconnect between registration and voting requirements. A student may use a school-issued ID to register to vote, yet that same ID cannot be used to verify identity when casting a ballot on Election Day. Policies that introduce this kind of inconsistency can create confusion and additional hurdles, particularly for younger
voters and students navigating the process for the first time.

Policy debates often center on intent, but access is determined by logistics. Every bill I have worked on this session has offered an opportunity to better understand how policy intent translates, or sometimes fails to translate, into real-world impact. In testimony, I tried to engage with sponsors’ goals while also highlighting the practical implications for voters, administrators, and communities.

This session has reinforced that legislative advocacy is rarely defined by a single outcome. Some proposals move forward, others stall, and many conversations continue beyond the hearing room. Preparation matters even when every point is not raised, and progress often happens incrementally. The work is cumulative and continuing to show up, learn, and engage remains essential.