HB 172: What It Is & Why It Matters
What the Bill Would Do
HB 172 is a 2025 House Bill proposed by Republican lawmakers in New Hampshire, officially titled “Restricting undeclared voters from same-day voting in a presidential or state primary.”
Key provisions:
- It would prohibit undeclared (i.e. unaffiliated) voters from changing their party affiliation on the same day as a primary in order to vote in that primary. Currently, an undeclared voter can show up on primary day, register with either major party at the polling place, vote in that party’s primary, then immediately revert back to undeclared. HB 172 would remove this flexibility.
- After the bill, undeclared voters would need to switch their registration by the regular deadline ahead of the primary in order to vote in it. That deadline is months in advance.
- It preserves same-day registration for new and first-time voters, so the change would not block people who are just registering for the first time from voting in primaries if they do so on the day.
Who Sponsored It & Its Status
- Prime Sponsor: Rep. John Sellers (R) of Bristol. There are several co-sponsors, all Republicans.
- Legislative Path & Outcome:
- Introduced in early January 2025.
- There was a public hearing in February; the House Election Law Committee held an Executive Session on Feb. 18.
- The committee voted unanimously (17-0) that it was “Inexpedient to Legislate.” That means the committee recommended against moving the bill forward.
- On March 26, 2025, the full House adopted a motion declaring HB 172 “Inexpedient to Legislate,” effectively killing the bill for that session.
Arguments For & Against
Here are the main arguments that were offered on both sides during the public debate, as per NHPR and related sources:
Proponents Say:
- Protecting party integrity / avoiding “raid” voting: Supporters argue that allowing undeclared voters to pick a party on primary day opens the door for people from one party to participate in the other party’s primary to influence outcomes (e.g. to hurt the stronger candidate or to pick one considered weaker in general election). HB 172 supporters frame this as defending the meaning of primary elections—i.e. nominating contests among those who are members or aligned.
- Predictability & stability: By requiring voters to choose parties by deadlines, the thinking is that election planning, candidate strategy, and party operations are more stable and less subject to last-minute shifts in who shows up. Those shifts are harder to anticipate under the existing same-day flexibility.
Opponents Say:
- Limits voter choice / informed decision-making: Many undeclared voters take advantage of the current rule to see primary ballots in both parties (or to evaluate both sides) before making up their mind. Opponents say HB 172 would force people to commit earlier, sometimes before hearing about the full slate of candidates.
- Disenfranchisement concerns: For many long-time undeclared voters (some for decades), the ability to switch temporarily at the polls is part of how they exercise political judgment. Removing that option may be seen as cutting off a major part of the electorate’s voice.
- “Skewing” concerns from either side: Some argue that this bill is more about limiting participation in primaries where undeclared voters might benefit one party, rather than genuine concern about fairness.
Relevance to the Trend of Leaving Party Labels
HB 172 is a concrete legislative attempt to push back against what many see as voters strategically using undeclared status to keep options open. It thus serves as an important test case: how far will institutional structures adjust to or limit the “flexibility” that undeclared registration provides? Including HB 172 in the analysis shows that the growth of undeclared registration isn’t just a passive cultural trend—it’s already prompting political efforts to redefine the boundaries of that status.
Where HB 172 Fits Into the Big Picture
This bill’s rise and fall reveal several important things about the current electoral and political climate in New Hampshire:
- Recognition that undeclared voters are a large, consequential bloc. Sponsors (and opponents) treat undeclared voters not as a marginal curiosity but as a group whose behavior in primaries matters enough to provoke legislative action. The fact that more than 386,000 New Hampshire voters in 2024 were undeclared is cited by NHPR in coverage of the bill.
- Pushback against flexible affiliation is politically feasible, but not always successful. HB 172 was unanimously voted “inexpedient to legislate” by its committee, meaning that even in a legislature where one party is proposing the change, there was enough cross-concern or resistance to block it. That suggests that many lawmakers, even within the majority party, see value (or at least risk in eliminating) the flexibility undeclared voters have.
- Uneven pressure points. The bill tries to limit same-day changes by undeclared voters, but it stops short of eliminating undeclared status itself. It preserves same-day registration for new/first-time voters. That shows a mix: legislators are aware of both political cost and constitutional / practical constraints. The attempt is narrow, focused on affiliation timing, rather than a wholesale refashioning of party-registration law.
- Symbolic and electoral importance. Even though HB 172 did not pass, its existence sends a message: for some political actors, undeclared voters are too “wild” to allow to shift in and out of party primaries on a whim. That has implications for future bills, for campaign strategy (especially around deadlines), and for messaging designed to court undeclared voters.
Revisiting Prior Sections in Light of HB 172
To integrate what HB 172 adds to our earlier observations:
- Where we discussed policy fights (Sec. 8 in prior report), HB 172 is the clearest recent example—proposed in early 2025—of lawmakers trying to limit undeclared voters’ flexibility. It confirms that the undeclared status is seen by some as a vulnerability (to what they view as strategic or opportunistic voting), not just a purely positive feature of NH’s election rules.
- When considering message to campaigns (Sec. 9), the bill suggests that campaigns should also monitor deadlines and voter registration flows very carefully. If similar bills emerge, deadlines might be moved earlier, so winning over undeclared voters earlier in the cycle could become even more decisive.
- On reform ideas (Sec. 10): HB 172 reveals that tightening affiliation windows is not just theoretical; it’s being pursued. It shows how proposed reforms can target specific edges of the system that undeclared voters currently exploit: same-day changes. Campaigns and advocates may need to prepare for possible future bills that are even more restrictive.
Updated Implications & Possible Scenarios
Given the fate of HB 172 and how it was received, here are refined implications and possible scenarios going into upcoming cycles (2026, etc.):
| Scenario | What Could Change | What Undeclared Voters Might Do |
|---|---|---|
| More bills like HB 172 (with narrowly tailored restrictions) | Lawmakers might try slightly different language: restrict same-day party switching only for primaries; maybe require deadlines weeks rather than months; possibly exceptions for first-time voters etc. | Undeclared voters may push for public awareness campaigns; they may shift behavior to declare earlier or wait to see bills pass/fail; might increase political pressure on those sponsoring these kinds of bills. |
| HB 172-like provisions succeed in future | Same-day switching could be eliminated; primaries become more closed in practice; party identifiers regain weight, since people would need to commit ahead. | Reduced flexibility may push some undecided voters to stay undeclared but skip primaries, or decide late but be locked out; campaigns would have to reach them earlier, possibly with broader “pledge” style outreach. |
| No more restrictions, or reversal of proposals | Current semi-open primary status preserved; undeclared status remains flexible; maybe even expansions of access or transparency around deadlines. | Undeclared voters retain leverage; political culture continues to reward non-partisan identification; possibly more pressure on major parties to moderate to appeal to this large group. |
Conclusion (with HB 172 in View)
The emergence and debate around HB 172 underscores that New Hampshire’s shift away from formal party labels isn’t just cultural or demographic—it is going to be litigated in law. Undeclared voters are large enough and consistent enough in their behavior that political actors see both opportunity and risk in that group. For now, attempts to limit undeclared voters’ flexibility (like HB 172) have not succeeded, which reinforces the stability of the current arrangements. But the frequency and form of such attempts bear close watching. They matter not just as policy curiosities, but as indicators of where the power lines are drawn: between political parties, independent/civic identity, and how much voters demand to retain agency over their affiliations.
Join the UNAFFILIATEDS FACEBOOK GROUP to join the Independent Voter Movement
