Relative to fees and primary petitions required for primary ballot election access.
Impact
By implementing these changes, HB 116 is designed to increase the barriers to entry for candidates in several significant races while ultimately aiming to improve the state's election process. The bill anticipates raising substantial revenue for the state's general fund—estimated at $301,950 for specific fiscal years—due to the elevated administrative assessment rates. However, local municipalities may experience an indeterminable decrease in revenue due to the repeal of the state representative filing fee.
Summary
House Bill 116 aims to amend the fees and primary petition requirements for candidates seeking access to primary ballots in New Hampshire. Notable changes include a significant increase in the filing fees for candidates running for governor and U.S. Senate, with fees rising from $100 to $10,000 and from $50 to $5,000 for congressional candidates. Additionally, the bill removes the previously established $2 fee for state representatives, making it free for them to file declarations of candidacy. To run without paying the fee, candidates must now submit a larger number of signed primary petitions, changing the threshold considerably for various offices.
Sentiment
The sentiment around HB 116 appears mixed. Supporters argue that increasing the filing fees helps ensure that only serious candidates participate, potentially enhancing the quality of election candidates. They also view the revised petition requirements as a necessary measure to maintain order and integrity in the election process. Conversely, opponents criticize this bill for potentially limiting political participation among grassroots candidates and smaller political groups, arguing that high fees and increased petition thresholds could disenfranchise many who wish to enter the political arena.
Contention
Points of contention primarily revolve around the perceived fairness of the bill's new financial requirements and the increased barriers for candidates. Advocates for equal representation fear that the higher fees will disproportionately affect individuals without financial backing or resources, while supporters maintain that the necessities of the current political landscape warrant such adjustments. The debate highlights the ongoing conflict between maintaining a robust candidate pool and ensuring an orderly electoral process.