223 fined in RSA 640:3.5 Id. at 000097 (emphasis added to denote minority’s suggestions). Such an amendment, they argued, would make it illegal only to post a photo for financial gain or to avoid harm. Id. at 000083. They noted that this was the original intent of the bill according to. the Secretary of State. Id. Nevertheless, the amendment was not supported by the majority, of the Criminal Justice Committee and accordingly was not added to the bill that was presented to the House of Representatives. Id. at 000076,000078. The bill, as amended by the Election Committee and the majority of the Criminal Justice Committee, passed the full House by a veto-proof 198-96 majority. See Legislative History , at 000063. On April 9, 2014, the Senate Public and -Municipal Affairs Committee held a hearing, at which Representatives Horrigan and Till and Deputy Secretary Scanlan testified in support of the bill. Representative Horrigan stated that the practice of pósting images of ballots on social media accounts “compromises the security of the polling place and the secrecy of the ballot.”’ Id. at 000063. He also cautioned that “[t]he new high-tech methods of showing a ballot absolutely could be used to further a serious vote-buying scheme,” Id. Similarly, Representative Till explained that ‘.‘the seemingly innocent bragging about how one voted by posting a photo of one’s completed ballot on Facebook, could undermine efforts to [ejnsure that no one is coerced into voting a,particular way.” Id. at 000064. On April 17, 2014, the Senate Committee on Public and. Municipal Affairs else, the primary significance of which is economic gain; it does not include economic advantage applicable to the public generally, such as tax reduction or .increased prosperity generally." Ann. § 640:2, N.H.Rev.Stat. 11(c). recommended that the bill “ought to pass,” and the Senate then passed the bill. Id. at 000067. On June 11, 2014, Governor Maggie, Hassan signed the bill into law, effective September 1,2014. The new law’s legislative history reveals that its opponents were concerned that the proposed law would infringe freedom of speech. In response* Representative Horrigan stated: The bill’s opponents'framed this as a free speech issue, but political speech is in fact prohibited at the polling place. You absolutely have the right to engage in- as much free speech as you want to beyond the boundary marked by the “No Electioneering” signs.- However, the space inside that boundary is a secure space where the debate stops and the secret balloting begins. Legislative History at 000063. Representative Till also addressed the opponents’ concern, stating: [E]very voter is free 'to tell as many people as'they desire, in whatever forum they choose, how they voted. What is not allowed is to show one’s completed ballot since, once cast, the ballot is the property of the state and in order to protect the secrecy of the “ballot cannot be publicly identified with a particular voter. Mat 000064. Vote Buying and Voter Coercion Secretary of State William Gardner, the defendant in this action, defends the new law on the grounds that it is needed to prevent vote buying and voter coercion. B. 5. Section 640:3, II of the New Hampshire " Revised Statutes provides: 'Harm' means any disadvantage or injury, to person or property or pecuniary interest, including disadvantage or injury to any other person or entity in whose welfare the public servant, party official, or voter is interested_" N.H.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 640:3, II.