Iris Altilio

I opposed HB684 and oppose this related bill as an individual and as an election official (Supervisor of the Checklist/Pembroke NH) for the same reasons. In addition to the reasons I gave in testimony on HB684, there are provisions in these bills that seem to contradict each other. HB674 permits out of state driver's licenses without restriction. HB323 restricts their use. HB684 does not remove "or a nondriver's identification card issued by the motor vehicles division, department, agency, or office of any other state." from II(A)(2), HB323 does. HB684 changes use of expired IDs as proof of identity. HB323 does not. What happens if both bills pass? I do understand the choice of 63 days for use of an out of state driver's license as NH DMV law requires a person to register with the DMV within 60 days of establishing residence but I don't see a fiscal note attached to this bill and changing the voter registration system to include date registered on the checklist will have a financial impact and could take more than 60 days to complete as SVRS is a vendor package and changes must be made by the vendor. I also question the wording of new section (5) "If the voter has been on the checklist for fewer than 63 days, a driver's license issued by any state, provided that if a place last registered to vote was recorded on the voter registration, then the state of issuance of the driver's license shall correspond to said place." This reads that if a person fills in a place last registered it must agree with the state of their driver's license, but if they don't put in a place, their out of state driver's license alone is acceptable. The wording is troublesome based on the wording on the voter registration form. - A lot of voters don't recall where they were last registered and don't provide the information. - On occasion a voter moved from place 1 to place 2, obtained a driver's license in place 2 but never registered to vote there. - The voter registration form asks the voter to initial that he or she is not currently registered to voter elsewhere or asks the voter to request that his/her name be removed, providing the previous location to vote. However, is this required? If the voter chooses not to make this request, we won't be provided with last place registered to capture in SVRS and the Secretary of State won't have the information to send to the state where the voter was previously registered. As an individual I oppose this bill because it is eliminating student IDs from approved educational institutions that contain a students photo and have an expiration date as acceptable forms of ID. While the number of students who don't have a NH drivers license is likely relatively low, those who do not would be required to obtain one of the four acceptable forms of ID to obtain a ballot. The student would have to obtain a DMV non-driver's ID or a passport even if the student did not want his/her information captured in the DMV system. Per RSA 654:12 (1)(2)(d), related to determining qualifications to vote, [RSA 654:12 effective November 11, 2024; see also RSA 654:12 set out above.] (d) IDENTITY. Any one of the following is presumptive evidence of the identity of an applicant sufficient to satisfy the identity requirement of this section: (1) Photo driver's license issued by any state or the federal government. (2) United States passport, armed services identification, or other photo identification issued by the United States government. (3) Photo identification issued by local or state government. (4) Any other evidence that reasonably establishes that it is more likely than not that the person is who they claim to be, including verification of the person's identity by the moderator or another election official. Residents of a nursing home or similar facility may prove their identity through verification of identity by the administrator of the facility or by his or her designee. For the purposes of this section, the application of a person whose identity has been verified by an official of a nursing home or similar facility shall be treated in the same manner as the application of a person who proved his or her identity with a photo identification. It seems that a person would be able to register to vote using "(4) Any other evidence that reasonably establishes that it is more likely than not that the person is who they claim to be, including verification of the person's identity by the moderator or another election official." but once registered would not be able to obtain a ballot. and please consider - in light of the lightning speed advances in artificial intelligence, how likely is it that a person who wants to fraudulently obtain a ballot will be able to generate an indistinguishable but fraudulent proof of identity? For the ordinary citizen who is registered and just wants to vote, perhaps unlikely. For the fraudster, very likely. Thank you for reviewing my testimony. Respectfully submitted by Iris Altilio