Home » News » Politics
June 21. 2012 8:24PM
Lynch nixes voter ID; override in the works
CONCORD — Gov. John Lynch on Thursday vetoed a bill that would require voters to show a photo ID or sign a qualified voter affidavit, setting up a showdown with legislators next week.
Using a qualified voter affidavit shouldn’t be used to establish a voter’s identity to vote and “will cause confusion, slow the voting process and may result in the inability of eligible voters to cast their vote,” Lynch wrote in his veto message for Senate Bill 289.
Handicapping next week’s vote to override the governor’s veto, Rep. David Bates, R-Windham, said, “I think it’s entirely up to the Senate at this point.”
Sen. Russell Prescott, R-Kingston, said he would push for the Senate next week to pass a corrections bill to satisfy the governor’s concern by substituting the use of the qualified voter affidavit with a simpler challenged voter affidavit, which is now used to challenge a person’s qualifications to vote. A corrections bill, if approved by the Senate, would go to the House for a vote and on to the governor to sign or veto, he said.
To override the governor, a two-thirds vote is required in both the House and Senate.
Without the corrections bill, Prescott said he wouldn’t support the override and didn’t know if the Senate would either. Sixteen votes are needed and 17 senators backed the measure at the last vote.
Bates said he was confident the House would override the governor.
“The question is whether these late-breaking objections are going to turn any of the senators away,” Bates said. “There’s nothing in the governor’s veto message that is going to sway any of the House members. It just remains to be seen what the Senate is going to do.”
Last year, Lynch vetoed a photo ID bill passed by both the House and Senate after town and city clerks voiced their concern that the bill was unworkable.
The Senate failed to override the veto.
This session, the Senate passed a bill that satisfied the concerns of clerks and the Secretary of State’s office, but the House made the bill more stringent. A compromise was reached allowing the Senate version of the bill to be in effect for this year’s elections, while the House version would apply after September 2013.
Some election officials fear the affidavit may take several minutes for voters to fill out and requires information that may not be readily available. They fear it may cause long lines at the polls in November.
House Speaker William O’Brien, in a statement, criticized the governor.
“The vast majority of New Hampshire voters will be disappointed to learn that in one of his last acts on legislation, this governor has chosen to favor his party’s discrimination mythology about voters being asked for photo identification instead of supporting a common-sense solution to the pressing need to ensure honest elections.
“This voter ID bill is a well-structured approach to ensuring clean elections,” he said. “We need to protect the integrity of the ballot box and guarantee that the ‘one-person, one-vote’ principle is not diluted by dishonest votes.”
Bates said legislators have been working on the issue for more than a year and “to be raising this now seems to be very disingenuous.”
Lynch said the bill “would put into place a photo identification system that is far more restrictive than necessary.”
Under SB 289, after September 2013, voters without identification also would be photographed and the photo attached to the affidavit.
On Wednesday, Lynch vetoed SB 318, which linked a person’s voting domicile to state motor vehicle records.
The Anti-Defamation League issued a statement praising Lynch for vetoing the two voter bills.
“These bills as passed by the Legislature would disenfranchise eligible voters in New Hampshire, and create confusion regarding the meanings and legal interpretations of the bill’s language, especially where it pertains to the terms ‘domiciles’ and ‘resident,’ and the requirement to register and apply for a license in New Hampshire,” said Michael N. Sheetz, its New England regional board chair. “We thank the Governor for his leadership and veto of these bills.”
Mike Cousineau may be reached at mcousineau@unionleader.com.
Using a qualified voter affidavit shouldn’t be used to establish a voter’s identity to vote and “will cause confusion, slow the voting process and may result in the inability of eligible voters to cast their vote,” Lynch wrote in his veto message for Senate Bill 289.
Handicapping next week’s vote to override the governor’s veto, Rep. David Bates, R-Windham, said, “I think it’s entirely up to the Senate at this point.”
Sen. Russell Prescott, R-Kingston, said he would push for the Senate next week to pass a corrections bill to satisfy the governor’s concern by substituting the use of the qualified voter affidavit with a simpler challenged voter affidavit, which is now used to challenge a person’s qualifications to vote. A corrections bill, if approved by the Senate, would go to the House for a vote and on to the governor to sign or veto, he said.
To override the governor, a two-thirds vote is required in both the House and Senate.
Without the corrections bill, Prescott said he wouldn’t support the override and didn’t know if the Senate would either. Sixteen votes are needed and 17 senators backed the measure at the last vote.
Bates said he was confident the House would override the governor.
“The question is whether these late-breaking objections are going to turn any of the senators away,” Bates said. “There’s nothing in the governor’s veto message that is going to sway any of the House members. It just remains to be seen what the Senate is going to do.”
Last year, Lynch vetoed a photo ID bill passed by both the House and Senate after town and city clerks voiced their concern that the bill was unworkable.
The Senate failed to override the veto.
This session, the Senate passed a bill that satisfied the concerns of clerks and the Secretary of State’s office, but the House made the bill more stringent. A compromise was reached allowing the Senate version of the bill to be in effect for this year’s elections, while the House version would apply after September 2013.
Some election officials fear the affidavit may take several minutes for voters to fill out and requires information that may not be readily available. They fear it may cause long lines at the polls in November.
House Speaker William O’Brien, in a statement, criticized the governor.
“The vast majority of New Hampshire voters will be disappointed to learn that in one of his last acts on legislation, this governor has chosen to favor his party’s discrimination mythology about voters being asked for photo identification instead of supporting a common-sense solution to the pressing need to ensure honest elections.
“This voter ID bill is a well-structured approach to ensuring clean elections,” he said. “We need to protect the integrity of the ballot box and guarantee that the ‘one-person, one-vote’ principle is not diluted by dishonest votes.”
Bates said legislators have been working on the issue for more than a year and “to be raising this now seems to be very disingenuous.”
Lynch said the bill “would put into place a photo identification system that is far more restrictive than necessary.”
Under SB 289, after September 2013, voters without identification also would be photographed and the photo attached to the affidavit.
On Wednesday, Lynch vetoed SB 318, which linked a person’s voting domicile to state motor vehicle records.
The Anti-Defamation League issued a statement praising Lynch for vetoing the two voter bills.
“These bills as passed by the Legislature would disenfranchise eligible voters in New Hampshire, and create confusion regarding the meanings and legal interpretations of the bill’s language, especially where it pertains to the terms ‘domiciles’ and ‘resident,’ and the requirement to register and apply for a license in New Hampshire,” said Michael N. Sheetz, its New England regional board chair. “We thank the Governor for his leadership and veto of these bills.”
- - - - - - - -
Mike Cousineau may be reached at mcousineau@unionleader.com.
» SHARE EVENTS FOR PUBLICATION, IT'S FREE!
Upcoming Events
- Should Manchester's mayor receive a 59% pay raise?
- Yes
- 23%
- No
- 77%
- Total Votes: 292