222 659:35 “Showing or Specially Marking a Ballot.” Id. at 000142. He also stated, “The main reason' this bill is necessary is to prevent situations where a voter could be coerced into posting proof that he or she voted a particular way.” Id. The bill first went to the House Committee on Election Law (the “Election Committee”), which recommended its passage with only a slight organizational change and the requirement that ‘posters be placed in polling places informing voters of the new law. See Legislative History at 000110, 000114. Members of the Election Committee noted that “showing your ballot on social media could cause und[ue] influence from employers or parents” and that the bill “protects privacy of voterfs] and stops coercion.” Id. at 000130. Representative Mary Till wrote the statement of intent for the Election Committee, noting, “RSA 659:35 was put in place to protect voters from being intimidated or coerced into proving they voted a particular way by showing their completed ballot or an image of their completed ballot.” Id. at 000114. The bill was then referred to the House Committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety (the “Criminal Justice Committee”), a majority of which recommended approval of the bill with the penalty reduced from a misdemeanor to a violation. See Legislative History at 000076, 000078. Notes from the Criminal Justice Committee’s hearing indicate that some committee members were concerned with whether the bill and its penalties were necessary. See id. at. 000099-000100. Representative Horrigan defended the law during the hearing, explaining that it “tightens up” existing law governing election fraud. Id. at 000099. Deputy Secretary of State David Scanlan also spoke in support of the bill, providing a “history of voting irregularities, including votes being bought,”3 Id. at 000100. When asked whether the bill was necessary, Deputy Secretary Scanlan responded that the “privacy of [the] ballot must be preserved.” Id. Ultimately, a majority of the Criminal Justice Committee recommended passing the bill so long as the penalty was decreased to a violation. Id. at 000076, 000078. A minority of the Criminal Justice Committee, however, filed a report concluding that it would be “inexpedient to legislate” the bill. See Legislative History at 000083. The minority wrote: Although the Minority agrees that the Criminal Justice Committee acted wisely in reducing the penalty from a misdemeanor to a violation, we believe this remains a very bad bill.... [I]t is not needed because we already have laws which prohibit people from selling their votes, for financial gain, and that was the only reason supporters gave for passing the bill_[T]his bill as drafted is overly broad. As such, it represents an intrusion on free speech. It fights a bogey man, which does not exist, at the expense of yielding even more of our freedoms. Id. The minority suggested further amendment of the final sentence of paragraph I as follows: This prohibition shall include taking a digital image or photograph of his or her marked ballot and distributing or sharing the image via social media or by,any other means only if the distribution or sharing is for the purpose of receiving pecuniary beneftt, as defined in RSA 640:2, 11(c),4 or avoiding harm, as de- 3.- The legislative history does not further describe Deputy Secretary Scanlan’s testimony on thispoint. 4. Section 640:2, 11(c) of the New Hampshire Revised Statutes provides: " 'Pecuniary benefit’ means any advantage in the form of money, property, commercial interest or anything