CONCORD, N.H. – Today, during an executive session of the House Election Law Committee, House Democrats on the committee voted against a proposed constitutional amendment that would add United States citizenship as a requirement to vote in New Hampshire elections.
“This should be the easiest vote any legislator ever takes,” said Chairman Ross Berry (R-Weare). “All we asked was whether only United State citizens should be voting in New Hampshire’s elections. The answer should be a unanimous yes.”
Chairman Berry continued, “New Hampshire has made tremendous progress in recent years strengthening election integrity, requiring photo ID, requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote. Putting citizenship as a voting requirement in the constitution is the logical next step. It’s about making sure the foundation of our election law is built on bedrock, not sand.”
Democrats on the committee argued the amendment was unnecessary, but Chairman Berry rejected that reasoning.
“If it’s already the law, then what’s the objection to putting it in the constitution? The only reason to oppose this is if you want to leave the door open to changing it later. Granite Staters deserve to know that their elected officials believe only citizens should vote, and today, Democrats on this committee refused to say so.”
“We’re going to keep fighting to take this straight to the voters of New Hampshire,” Chairman Berry Concluded. “Granite Staters overwhelmingly support this, and Democrats in Concord are deliberately standing in their way.”
BACKGROUND
House Democrats on the Election Law Committee opposed enshrining the common-sense principle that only U.S. citizens should vote in our elections
The amendment seeks to update Article 11 of the New Hampshire Constitution, which currently uses the word “inhabitant” rather than “citizen” when describing who is eligible to vote.
While U.S. citizenship is already required by state statute, the New Hampshire Constitution does not explicitly include citizenship as a voting qualification. The proposed amendment would have given that protection constitutional permanency, ensuring it could not be stripped away by a simple legislative majority in the future.