New Hampshire Similar to Minnesota, New Hampshire stands out for having same-day regis tration, which helps reduce a barrier to voting. Because New Hampshire had same-day registration when HAVA was passed, itis not required to provide voters with an option to cast a provisional ballot. Thus, the 10 counties exam: ined in New Hampshire are ranked on only four factors: registration rate, voter tumout, rate of absentee ballots rejected, and rate of voters removed from the voter rolls. Overall, the three worst election performance results were found in Cheshire, Strafford, and Sullivan counties. In paticulas all three have below-average voter patticipation rates. Out of the New Hampshire counties that we evaluated, Sullivan had the worst voter registra n and voter turnout rate in the state, while Strafford rated as the second worst on those two factors. In Sullivan, the voter turnout rate was almost 40 percent lower than the state average. ‘While these counties were the poorest performers in the state, our analysis revealed that New Hampshire had a remarkably small deviation between its best and worst-performing counties. This indicates a smaller discrepancy in voter accessibility between counties than in many ofthe other states we analyzed. 31 Center for American Progress Action Fund | Unequal Access 2012 New Hampshire voting law snapshot Voter registration: + Online registration option: No! + Same-day registration option: Yes + Registration deadline: 10 days before primary and general elections” Voting administration: New Hampshire’ election is governed by the office ofthe secretary of state and locally by own and ‘county clerks." Voter ID/residency require- iments: In excess of HAVAS requirements, New Hampshire voters were required to provide photo identification before voting (or alternatively, execute achal- lenged voter affidavit asserting their identity to receive a ballot!New Hampshire: Best and worst counties County ankings fr each factorin parentheses, 1= wost-performing county Overall Voter Absentee ballot Voter state Voter. registration rejection rate, removal county rank —tumout ate rate, 2012 2012 rate, 2012 ‘Chestire 7 asm) AORTA 295%) 22a) ‘sratord 2 sos) 75am) 239855) 21682) sutln 3 453%) SAC 198616) 178610) Hiborough 4 61683) 4) 308%) 196818) Rockingham 5 Tawi BATH 0) 3.1690) 210815) Merimack 6 Tas aH 175%) 216813) Carat 7 755%) S18) 19618) 21ss(4) Belknap 8 768K) BRAG) 13086 (10) 2058(7 Coos 9 Taam) 85345) 136600) 191809) Graton 10 se9%(I0) AKI) 3108) 21086 ‘Bo i Mages na aon ft ns 32. Center for American Progress Action Fund | Unequal Access