Advocates for disabled criticize proposed voting changes
But supporters insisted the voter identification requirements for those voting by absentee ballot should be as rigorous as those who vote in person at the polls.
They maintain that small towns should not have to lease expensive accessible voting equipment if there aren't going to be any voters who need those services on Election Day.
Dr. Randy Pierce is chief executive officer with Future in Sight, an advocacy group that assists the 29,000 residents in New Hampshire who are blind or visually impaired.
'What these result in are creating a barrier and in New Hampshire voting should be a private, independent and undue barrier-free system,' Pierce said. 'The good news is this is not too late.'
Both the absentee voting (SB 287) and accessible voting (HB 613) bills are expected to go to a House-Senate conference committee to try and settle differences between the two measures.
Currently, anyone can request by mail an absentee ballot application and then mail in their vote to the city or town clerk.
The absentee voter has to sign an affidavit under penalty of perjury that he or she qualifies as a resident and eligible voter in that precinct.
Late last month, the House Election Laws Committee attached to a related absentee ballot bill the proposed requirement that a copy of the voter's photo identification card and a notarized signature on the application form would be required to receive an absentee ballot.
Chairman and state Rep. Ross Berry, R-Weare, said concerns about the mandate were overblown.
'Importantly, New Hampshire law currently allows for electronic and remote notarization services, providing an additional, accessible option for voters to verify their identity remotely,' Berry said.
'Voters who request an absentee ballot in person may simply present their ID at the clerk's office. During committee discussions, it was noted that electronic transmission methods — such as emailing a scanned copy of an ID — would be acceptable, as New Hampshire law currently imposes no requirements for ID submission.'
Critics liken bills to voter suppression
Rep. Connie Lane, D-Concord, said there's no valid reason for imposing the requirement.
'This bill, like many others passed over the past few years, is based purely on speculation and adds yet another barrier to exercising the right to vote — also known as voter suppression,' Lane said.
The House passed the bill along party lines, 184-146 with GOP members in support and Democrats against it.
Sen. James Gray, R-Rochester, convinced the Senate last week to have his accessible voting language replace an unrelated measure about default town budgets.
As crafted, it would permit any city or town clerk to notify Secretary of State David Scanlan that it will not need to acquire accessible voting equipment unless a local voter asks for it within 60 days of an election.
James Ziegra, senior staff attorney with the Disabilities Rights Center, said the change is unconstitutional and would be in violation of federal law as well.
Pierce said his members reside in 'every town and city ward' in New Hampshire so all communities should the accessible machines available.
'No one in this state should have to fight to have their vote counted and heard,' added Krysten Evans, director of policy and advocacy for ABLE NH, an interest group that supports the disabled.
What's Next: Both bills will be discussed before House-Senate conference committees next week and face a June 19 deadline to reach an agreement.
Prospects: Given the support among House and Senate Republican leaders for these changes, odds are high that they are going win approval in the Legislature during these final weeks.
klandrigan@unionleader.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
3 minutes ago
Trump moves to use the levers of presidential power to help his party in the 2026 midterms
President Donald Trump has made clear in recent weeks that he's willing to use the vast powers of his office to prevent his party from losing control of Congress in next year's midterm elections. Some of the steps Trump has taken to intervene in the election are typical, but controversial, political maneuvers taken to his trademark extremes. That includes pushing Republican lawmakers in Texas and other conservative-controlled states to redraw their legislative maps to expand the number of U.S. House seats favorable to the GOP. Others involve the direct use of official presidential power in ways that have no modern precedent, such as ordering his Department of Justice to investigate the main liberal fundraising entity, ActBlue. The department also is demanding the detailed voter files from each state in an apparent attempt to look for ineligible voters on a vast scale. And on Monday, Trump posted a falsehood-filled rant on social media pledging to lead a 'movement' to outlaw voting machines and mail balloting, the latter of which has become a mainstay of Democratic voting since Trump pushed Republicans to avoid it in 2020 — before flipping on the issue ahead of last year's presidential election. The individual actions add up to an unprecedented attempt by a sitting president to interfere in a critical election before it's even held, moves that have raised alarms among those concerned about the future of U.S. democracy. 'Those are actions that you don't see in healthy democracies,' said Ian Bassin, executive director of Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan organization that has sued the Trump administration. 'Those are actions you see in authoritarian states.' Bassin noted that presidents routinely stump for their party in midterm elections and try to bolster incumbents by steering projects and support to their districts. But he said Trump's history is part of what's driving alarm about the midterms. He referenced Trump's attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, which ended with a violent assault on the Capitol by his supporters. 'The one thing we know for certain from experience in 2020 is that this is a person who will use every measure and try every tactic to stay in power, regardless of the outcome of an election,' Bassin said. He noted that in 2020, Trump was checked by elected Republicans in Congress and statehouses who refused to bend the rules, along with members of his own administration and even military leaders who distanced themselves from the defeated incumbent. In his second term, the president has locked down near-total loyalty from the GOP and stacked the administration with loyalists. The incumbent president's party normally loses seats in Congress during midterm elections. That's what happened to Trump in 2018, when Democrats won enough seats to take back the House of Representatives, stymieing the president's agenda and eventually leading to his two impeachments. Trump has said he doesn't want a repeat. He also has argued that his actions are actually attempts to preserve democracy. Repeating baseless allegations of fraud, he said Monday during a meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy that 'you can never have a real democracy with mail-in ballots.' Earlier this month, Trump said that, because he handily won Texas in the 2024 presidential election, 'we are entitled to five more seats.' Republicans currently have a three-seat margin in the House of Representatives. Trump pushed Texas Republicans to redraw their congressional map to create up to five new winnable GOP seats and is lobbying other red states, including Indiana and Missouri, to take similar steps to pad the margin even more. The Texas Legislature is likely to vote on its map on Wednesday. There's no guarantee that Trump's gambit will work, but also no legal prohibition against fiddling with maps in those states for partisan advantage. In response, California Democrats are moving forward with their own redistricting effort as a way to counter Republicans in Texas. Mid-decade map adjustments have happened before, though usually in response to court orders rather than presidents openly hoping to manufacture more seats for their party. Larry Diamond, a political scientist at Stanford University, said there's a chance the redrawing of House districts won't succeed as Trump anticipates — but could end up motivating Democratic voters. Still, Diamond said he's concerned. 'It's the overall pattern that's alarming and that the reason to do this is for pure partisan advantage,' he said of Trump's tactic. Diamond noted that in 2019 he wrote a book about a '12-step' process to turn a democracy into an autocracy, and 'the last step in the process is to rig the electoral process.' Trump has required loyalty from all levels of his administration and demanded that the Department of Justice follow his directives. One of those was to probe ActBlue, an online portal that raised hundreds of millions of dollars in small-dollar donations for Democratic candidates over two decades. The site was so successful that Republicans launched a similar venture, called WinRed. Trump, notably, did not order a federal probe into WinRed. Trump's appointees at the Department of Justice also have demanded voting data from at least 19 states, as Trump continues to insist he actually won the 2020 election and proposed a special prosecutor to investigate that year's vote tally. Much as he did before winning the 2024 election, Trump has baselessly implied that Democrats may rig upcoming vote counts against him. In at least two of those states, California and Minnesota, the DOJ followed up with election officials last week, threatening legal action if they didn't hand over their voter registration lists by this Thursday, according to letters shared with The Associated Press. Neither state — both controlled by Democrats — has responded publicly. Trump's threat this week to end mail voting and do away with voting machines is just his latest attempt to sway how elections are run. An executive order he signed earlier this year sought documented proof of citizenship to register to vote, among other changes, though much of it has been blocked by courts. In the days leading up to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol to reverse his 2020 loss, Trump's allies proposed having the military seize voting machines to investigate purported fraud, even though Trump's own attorney general said there was no evidence of significant wrongdoing. The Constitution says states and Congress, rather than the president, set the rules for elections, so it's unclear what Trump could do to make his promises a reality. But election officials saw them as an obvious sign of his 2026 interests. 'Let's see this for what it really is: An attempt to change voting going into the midterms because he's afraid the Republicans will lose,' wrote Ann Jacobs, the Democratic chair of the Wisconsin Elections Commission, on X. Derek Muller, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame, said the idea of seizing voting machines in 2020 was a sign of how few levers the president has to influence an election, not of his power. Under the U.S. Constitution, elections are run by states and only Congress can 'alter' the procedures — and, even then, for federal races alone. 'It's a deeply decentralized system,' Muller said. There are fewer legal constraints on presidential powers, such as criminal investigations and deployment of law enforcement and military resources, Muller noted. But, he added, people usually err in forecasting election catastrophes. He noted that in 2022 and 2024, a wide range of experts braced for violence, disruption and attempts to overturn losses by Trump allies, and no serious threats materialized. 'One lesson I've learned in decades of doing this is people are often preparing for the last election rather than what actually happens in the new ones,' Muller said.
18 minutes ago
Sen. Lindsey Graham says Trump ready to ‘crush' Russian economy if Putin avoids talks with Zelenskyy
WASHINGTON -- Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said Tuesday that he believes President Donald Trump is prepared to 'crush' Russia's economy with a new wave of sanctions if Russian President Vladimir Putin refuses to meet with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the coming weeks. Graham, who spoke with Trump on Tuesday morning, has pushed the president for months to support his sweeping bipartisan sanctions bill that would impose steep tariffs on countries that are fueling Russia's invasion of Ukraine by buying its oil, gas, uranium, and other exports. The legislation has the backing of 85 senators, but Trump has yet to endorse it. Republican leaders have said they won't move without him. 'If we don't have this thing moving in the right direction by the time we get back, then I think that plan B needs to kick in,' Graham said in a phone interview with The Associated Press on Tuesday. The Senate, now away from Washington for the August recess, is scheduled to return in September. Graham's call with Trump came less than 24 hours after high-stakes meetings at the White House with Zelenskyy and several European leaders. Trump and the leaders emerged from those talks sounding optimistic, with the expectation being that a Putin and Zelenskyy sit-down will happen soon. Still, Trump's comments to Graham, one of his top congressional allies, mark the latest sign that pressure is building — not just on Putin, but on Trump as well. 'Trump believes that if Putin doesn't do his part, that he's going to have to crush his economy. Because you've got to mean what you say,' Graham told reporters in South Carolina on Tuesday. As Congress prepares to return to session in early September, the next few weeks could become a defining test of whether lawmakers and international allies are prepared to act on their own if Trump doesn't follow through. Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal, the lead Democrat pushing the bill with Graham, says there is a 'lot of reason for skepticism and doubt' after the meetings with Trump, especially because Putin has not made any direct promises. He said the Russian leader has an incentive to play 'rope-a-dope' with Trump. 'The only way to bring Putin to the table is to show strength,' Blumenthal told the AP this week. 'What Putin understands is force and pressure.' Still, Republicans have shown little willingness to override Trump in his second term. They abruptly halted work on the sanctions bill before the August recess after Trump said the legislation may not be needed. Asked Tuesday in a phone interview whether the sanctions bill should be brought up even without Trump's support, Graham said, 'the best way to do it is with him.' 'There will come a point where if it's clear that Putin is not going to entertain peace, that President Trump will have to back up what he said he would do,' Graham said. 'And the best way to do it is have congressional blessing.' The legislation would impose tariffs of up to 500% on countries such as China and India, which together account for roughly 70% of Russia's energy trade. The framework has the support of many European leaders. Many of those same European leaders left the White House on Monday with a more hopeful tone. Zelenskyy called the meeting with Trump 'an important step toward ending this war.' German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said that his expectations 'were not just met, they were exceeded.' Still, little concrete progress was visible on the main obstacles to peace. That deadlock likely favors Putin, whose forces continue to make steady, if slow, progress on the ground in Ukraine. French President Emmanuel Macron told reporters after talks at the White House that Trump believes a deal with Putin is possible. But he said sanctions remain on the table if the process fails.
CNN
4 hours ago
- CNN
Why Putin is not ready to meet with Zelensky, and may never be
Agreement at the White House Monday on the next step – a bilateral meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky – seemed broadly unanimous. Then came the Russian response. 'The idea was discussed that it would be appropriate to study the opportunity of raising the level of representatives of the Russian and Ukrainian sides,' said Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov, briefing reporters on US President Donald Trump's call with Putin. No mention of either leader by name, or any indication the 'representatives' could be raised to that level. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov took a more conciliatory tone in a state TV interview later Tuesday. 'We do not refuse any forms of work – neither bilateral nor trilateral,' he insisted. But: 'Any contacts involving top officials must be prepared with the utmost care.' In Kremlin speak, that means they are nowhere near ready to agree to this. And that should come as no surprise. This is a war that Putin started by unilaterally recognizing a chunk of Ukrainian land (the self-styled Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics) as independent. He has argued Ukraine is 'an inalienable part of (Russia's) own history, culture and spiritual space,' and its separation from Russia is a historical mistake. So if this meeting happens – as Orysia Lutsevich, the director of Chatham House's Russia and Eurasia program puts it – Putin 'will have to accept the failure of sitting down with a president he considers a joke from a country that doesn't exist'. It would also, she argued, be a huge reversal in tone that would be tough to explain to the Russian people. '(Putin) so much brainwashed Russians on state television that Zelensky's a Nazi, that (Ukraine's) a puppet state of the West … that Zelensky's illegitimate, why is he suddenly talking to him?' The Kremlin not only routinely questions the legitimacy of the Ukrainian leader, fixating on the postponement of elections in Ukraine, illegal under martial law, but in its latest 'peace' memorandum requires Ukraine to hold elections before any final peace treaty is signed. Putin and other Russian officials rarely refer to Zelensky by name, instead preferring the scathing moniker of 'the Kyiv regime.' And don't forget it was Zelensky who traveled to Turkey for the first direct talks between the two sides in mid-May, only for Putin to send a delegation headed by a writer of historical textbooks. Tatiana Stanovaya, senior fellow at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center and founder of which provides news and analysis on Russia, argues that while Putin does not view a meeting with Zelensky as critical in a war that for Russia is more about confronting the West than Ukraine, he could still take the meeting if he thought it would be successful. 'The key demands must be on the table and Zelensky must be ok to talk about it,' she told CNN in an interview Tuesday. As of now Zelensky has ruled out those key demands, which include giving up territory Ukraine still controls. But Putin, she argued, sees Trump as the key to changing that. 'Trump is seen as an enabler of (the) Russian vision of the settlement and for that the United States is supposed to work with Kyiv to push them to be more flexible, to be more open to Russian demands.' Stanovaya suggested Russia may try to keep the US on side by doing what Ushakov suggested, and suggesting a new round of Istanbul talks, but with a higher-level delegation, perhaps including Ushakov himself, and foreign minister Lavrov. But he won't risk an 'ambush' by sitting down with Zelensky only to find all his demands rejected. Trump ended his day on Monday by posting on Truth Social that he 'began the arrangements for a meeting … between President Putin and President Zelensky.' By the time he had woken up and dialed into the breakfast show on Fox News Tuesday morning, it seemed to have dawned on him this was not a done deal. 'I sort of set it up with Putin and Zelensky, and you know, they're the ones that have to call the shots. We're, we're 7,000 miles away,' he said. Putin has no reason to acquiesce at this point. Having made zero concessions, he has been rewarded with a grand summit in Alaska, the dropping of a demand by Trump to sign onto a ceasefire before a peace talks, and the crumbling of all sanctions ultimatums to date. Having slightly dialed down the scale of nightly drone attacks on Ukrainian cities so far in August, Russia ramped them up again Monday night, firing 270 drones and 10 missiles. If Trump's pressure on Zelensky hasn't yet yielded the results Moscow wants, there's always military force to fall back on. The only wild card for Russia at this point is who Trump will blame when this latest peace effort fails.
