Rowan Anderson

This bill sets a dangerous precedent in both New Hampshire and the United States as a whole. I do not believe that a state should be able to define citizenship above the federal government, and there is no legal precedent for "state citizenship." According to the Carsey School of Public Policy at the University of New Hampshire, approximately 53% of the New Hampshire population were born elsewhere in the United States and moved to here, while only 41% of the population were born in the state. This bill would immediately alienate the majority of New Hampshire residents from voting, a clear problem in a democracy. Furthermore, creating "state citizenship" would set the precedent that the United States is no longer one Union, operating as one federal country. By enabling states to have specific requirements for "state citizenship," it demonstrates that the guidelines for federal citizenship are no longer enough and that any U.S. citizen is not welcome in the state of New Hampshire, despite the founding ideas of United States of America. By creating this dichotomy between New Hampshire citizen and everyone else, we are setting a dangerous precedent for the rest of the Union by allowing states to decide who is allowed to partake in their civil duty of voting through arbitrary laws that are not representative of those of the federal government. This bill is dangerous, not just for current New Hampshire voters, but for the precedent it may set for the rest of the United States.