Republicans showed up in greater numbers than Democrats in the almost equally divided New Hampshire House of Representatives on Thursday and won almost every vote. Here is a recap of what happened.
David Meuse (D-Portsmouth) said that these weapons can cause serious injuries and would make New Hampshire less safe. Meuse also said that these weapons are unlikely to help people defend themselves.
Terry Roy (R-Northfield) says that other legal items can cause injury and these items are illegal because they are archaic. People can already order these items online under different names and there are not a rash of assaults related to these weapons. He also said that they are small and can be used easily for self-defense.
The ought to pass (OTP) motion was adopted, 196-176.
Meuse later released the following statement.
“Despite their hollow claims of support for public safety, Republicans consistently vote to make the Granite State a less safe place to live. Today, they overwhelmingly voted to legalize brass knuckles and blackjacks, dangerous weapons with no purpose other than inflicting serious injury and death. Minutes later, Republicans voted against closing firearm background check loopholes which allow domestic abusers and criminals unfettered access to guns online and at gun shows. Finally, they opposed a bill attempting to intervene when someone in crisis shows clear signs of harming themselves or others with firearms. Republicans are putting a radical right-wing agenda ahead of public safety and Granite State families are paying the price.”
This bill discusses possession or discharge of a firearm in a safe school zone.
Steve Shurleff (D-Concord) expressed frustration and addressed some of the testimony at the public hearing on this bill last month. He also said that he is a hunter and he submitted this bill for the safety of his grandchildren.
Jennifer Rhodes (R-Winchester) said that this bill will not stop people from committing crimes in schools and that hunters would require permission to cross paths within 1,000 feet of schools. She also said that time can be of the essence in a crisis situation.
An inexpedient to legislate (ITL) motion was adopted, 199-174.
Loren Selig (D-Durham) later released the following statement.
“This issue is simple. We do not need firearms in our schools. While federal law establishes ‘gun free school zones’ for the conduct of students, gaps in state law allow for members of the public to bring firearms onto school campuses, jeopardizing the safety of our kids, their teachers, and school resource officers. The tragic reality is there have been over 100 mass shootings already in 2023. My own children now instinctively look for hiding places and easy exits when they should be focused on their learning. As a parent, worrying that my kids will be traumatized by violence, or worse, won’t come home, is an unsustainable way to live. It does not have to be this way and legislation to cure gaps in the law is a tool we can and must use to protect Granite Staters from harm. It is gravely disappointing to see the House refuse common-sense gun violence prevention measures time and time again. ”
This bill requires a background check before any commercial firearm sale.
Ray Newman (D-Nashua) said that background checks keep firearms out of the hands of prohibited persons like felons and they are constitutional within the second amendment.
Jonathan Stone (R-Claremont) said that the bill was duplicative to existing background checks and expanded it in areas where it might not be needed. Stone said that no law enforcement agency asked for this bill.
An ITL motion was adopted, 197-175.
This bill would repeal a law that prohibits cooperation by local law enforcement with federal agencies in certain
Linda Harriott-Gathright (D-Nashua) said that this bill would help reduce gun violence and opponents of this bill support secession from the United States.
Roy said the laws that would be repealed by this bill were put in place due to unusual and needless laws coming out of Washington that violate the Constitution.
An ITL motion was adopted, 200-173.
This bill addresses extreme risk situations, giving authorities the ability to take away firearms in certain situations such as concerns of suicide.
Nancy Murphy (D-Merrimack) said that the process would be a civil process, is narrow and can only be requested by only a limited number of people and there are significant thresholds for courts to issue the orders, related to an immediate threat of harm from a firearm.
She added that penalties can be given to those who try to file requests for extreme risk protection orders fraudulently and that extreme risk protection orders already exist in 19 states and Washington D.C.
Roy said that Murphy is right that people who are a threat to themselves or others should not be armed, but the state already has a law in place addressing this issue, and that people should not be punished for what they might do and it doesn’t matter what other states do.
An ITL was adopted, 198-172.
Roy later released a statement on this and the other gun-related bills.
“New Hampshire has a proud history of responsible gun ownership. While House Democrats voted to enforce arbitrary red flag laws and to allow Joe Biden to unilaterally chip away at the Second Amendment with Executive Orders, the Republican position has not changed. Today Republicans stood strong in support of our Second Amendment rights and will continue to ensure that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. None of the bills they voted to pass would reduce the risk of a shooting. If these bills do not accomplish that goal, then the intention is clear: Democrats want to take guns away from and disarm law-abiding citizens.”
Zandra Rice-Hawkins, executive director of Granite State Progress, released a statement on this and other gun-related bills.
“In the past year, we witnessed the senseless murders in Uvalde, Buffalo, Monterey Park, Michigan State, and so many other communities, and these are only the gun tragedies that make the national news. Every day our communities deal with gun violence, and each of us needs to do our part to improve public safety by keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals, promoting responsible gun ownership, holding the gun lobby and industry accountable, and keeping high capacity weapons off our streets and out of our schools. We condemn the votes against public safety in the State House. Every single legislator who voted against these measures is responsible for the epidemic of gun violence that continues to harm our communities and our futures.”
A motion to reconsider this bill was made, requiring fish and game officers to obtain a warrant to conduct a search and seizure.
There were concerns that it was misunderstood earlier, but it has been before the house several times in recent years.
This motion was not adopted, 117-256
This exempting dimethyltryptamine from the controlled drug act.
Jason Gerhard (R-Franklin) says this bill would help people with psychological health issues, particularly suicides, and the chemical has been stopped from legalization by large pharmaceutical companies.
Matt Santonastaso (R-Jaffrey) says the substance can create spiritual experiences, is difficult to overdose on and is a part of certain religious practices.
Meuse expressed concern, saying this bill has no educational elements for proper use or guardrails against use by minors. He also said that some people can have heart conditions or serotonin shock after taking this substance.
An ITL vote was adopted 274-97.
Jodi Newell (D-Keene) says that U.S. citizens should not be subject to needless search and seizures and that these searches can prevent tourists from coming to New Hampshire to avoid these checkpoints.
Meuse added that it does not prevent border protection officials from doing their job.
Karen Reid (R-Deering) said providing advance notice of checkpoints defeats the purpose of having checkpoints.
An amendment was passed by a voice vote.
A motion recommending ought to pass as amended (OTPA) 220-152.
This bill expands eligibility of students in the education freedom account program.
David Luneau (D-Hopkinton) said that a lack of oversight makes this bill infeasible right now and it would raise property taxes, and that it would limit resources for other programs.
Glenn Cordelli (R-Tuftonboro) said this bill can help parents that might otherwise be able to access education freedom account grants for their children, thus helping children.
Jason Osbourne (R-Auburn) said the increase was modest and helped New Hampshire students meet their educational needs.
An OTPA motion passed 187-184. A reconsideration vote by Joe Sweeney (R-Salem) as a parliamentary tactic to prevent a later vote on the bill 182-190. Sweeney provided a series of other reconsideration votes later in the day (see below)
Cordelli later released the following statement.
“Parents want the best education possible for their children, and the Education Freedom Account program empowers parents to provide the best education. However, many families who need that choice have run into the current income cap of 300% of the Federal Poverty Level.This bill is a modest increase of the income limit, to 350%, and keeps up with the rampant inflation we are seeing in our economy. In committee we heard from hundreds of families who were denied access to the program because of the current income limit. Students at all income levels can struggle with their education, and it is not exclusive to only those whose families’ income is below 300% of the Federal Poverty Level. We must realize that students are not school funding units; they are children who deserve to succeed in their education.”
Luneau later released the following statement.
“Since the EFA voucher program was established two years ago, its budget has quickly ballooned with most funds going to subsidize students who were already in private school. The program has little transparency or accountability to guard against abuse, and expanding eligibility to households making over $100,000 a year will only exacerbate the existing problems. The Department of Education claimed the EFA program would save taxpayers money but have already requested $60 million to fund it for the next two years. I am disappointed that this bill was passed by House Republicans today, because Granite State families cannot afford to fork out even more of their money to subsidize private schools.”
This bill would provide additional surveys to students.
Valerie McDonnell (R-Salem) said that this bill would this bill would subject students to invasive and inaccurate surveys.
Rick Ladd (R-Haverhill) saw it as an overreach and left students open to data mining.
Stephen Woodcock (D-Conway) said that the surveys are simple and helps expand data about charter schools by using an opt-out system rather than an opt-in.
Peggy Balboni (D-Rye) said that this would help student voices be heard.
An OTP motion was not adopted 181-193. A motion to table the bill failed 181-195. An ITL vote was adopted by voice vote. A reconsideration vote later failed 179-197.
This bill creates an education freedom account trust fund.
Mel Myler (D-Concord) said that this bill is not a housekeeping measure and that the funds for education freedom account is growing out of proportion of its usage and would take money away from local public schools.
He said there needs to be a stated limit to money for EFA programs.
Corinne Cascadden (D-Berlin) said this bill would add to the lack of transparency
Cordelli says this bill clarifies the will of the legislature regarding the educational trust fund, which was created in 1999.
He added that legislatures cannot bind future legislature and that the New Hampshire Supreme Court made a ruling several years ago ruling that later rulings have precedence and any opposition to this bill is an attempt to sabotage education freedom programs.
An OTP motion was adopted 191-185. A reconsideration vote later failed 181-195.
This bill expands student eligibility for educational freedom accounts on several levels, including expanding income limits and expanding eligibility for children of military members, English language learners, homeless students and persistently bullied students.
Linda Tanner (D-Georges Mills) repeated earlier concerns about education freedom accounts and their current lack of accountability. Hope Damon (D-Sunapee) echoed these sentiments.
Alicia Lekas (R-Hudson) gave a speech about the experience of a student that is poor and being bullied that Speaker Packard advised was getting off track after a point of order by Luneau that the speech had nothing to do with the bill.
Margaret Drye (R-Plainfield) said educational freedom accounts can provide stability for students.
An OTP motion was adopted 192-184. A reconsideration vote failed 181-196.
This bill addresses a tenant’s right to notification prior to the sale of a multifamily home.
Joe Alexander (R-Goffstown) said that forcing an owner of a restricted (four or more units) to provide more than 60 days is too much time given the turnaround for sales and would raise housing prices.
Cam Kenney (D-Durham) said this would only apply to corporate landlords, not local landlords, and it is a right-to-know effort for tenants. It would also help tenants of mobile home parks create co-ops and purchase their homes rather than be evicted. He also said that most sales take more time than 60 days.
An amendment failed 179-194. An OTP motion was not adopted, 175-199. An ITL motion was adopted by voice vote.
Sweeney later released a statement on this and other housing-related bills.
I strongly believe in the free-market principles that have helped to make our state one of the most prosperous in the nation. However, I am deeply concerned about the four pieces of legislation New Hampshire Democrats pushed today that will further burden our Granite State housing providers. Thankfully, House Republicans showed up in force and defeated these burdensome bills seeking to attack and undermine our housing providers. Our housing crisis will not be solved by efforts to institute rent control. It will not be solved by prohibiting landlords from putting their properties on the market for a year. It will not be solved by forcing landlords to accept tenants and enter into government contracts. What does contribute to solving our current housing problem is legislation like HB117 which clarifies NH law and allows a landlord to end a lease when, in fact, the lease ends. Without this clarification, the current law makes it more difficult for marginal individuals to secure housing.I believe that it is our duty to empower the free market to provide affordable and accessible housing to all, however we cannot do that by putting in place unnecessary regulations and barriers that hinder the growth of our housing market. Today Republicans came together to pass sensible legislation and defeat extremist policies.
Kenney later released the following statement on this and other housing-related bills.
“New Hampshire is in a housing crisis, and renters, young and old, are facing significant challenges in finding and keeping affordable housing across the state. Today, the House was unsuccessful in protecting renters, killing bills that would have required proper notice of property renovations resulting in eviction, protecting housing availability for those who hold housing vouchers, and requiring renters be notified of the sale of the property they rent. These provisions are small steps to protect Granite Staters during a volatile rental market. House Democrats will continue to be solutions-oriented in combating this housing crisis.”
This bill allows landlords to end the tenancy of tenants at the end of their lease term.
Rebecca McBeath (D-Portsmouth) reiterated concerns voiced during public hearings that this would harm tenants, giving landlords another excuse to evict tenants without cause because their leases end.
Bob Lynn (R-Windham) said this addresses a discrepancy where tenants might have a year lease, but that same lease for a landlord lasts forever, making it less likely for landlords to take a chance on tenants.
An OTP motion was adopted 211-157.
This bill addresses evictions relative to the owner’s intent to renovate a property.
Again, arguments from the public hearing were echoed. Opponents of the bill said it would reduce the amount of rental properties and supporters said it would protect tenants from needless evictions. ‘
An OTP motion was not adopted, 154-213. An ITL motion was adopted by voice vote.
This bill requires landlords to participate in Section 8 programs.
Supporters of the bill said that it would harm the rights of landlords and create onerous regulations while supporters of the bill said that often landlords ignore renters who are eligible for Section 8 vouchers and it does not force any landlords to accept Section 8 vouchers.
An OTP motion was not adopted, 165-206.
This bill addresses notice of rent increases.
Katelyn Kuttab (R-Windham) spoke in opposition to the bill, saying it would burden the landlord and not help solve the housing shortage. Scott Wallace (R-Danville) said that is a step toward rent control and that it would lead to higher rents.
Tim Horrigan (D-Durham) said that this will stop landlords from raising rents needlessly. Kenney noted that this only affects rent increases of more than 15 percent.
An OTP motion was not adopted, 166-207. An ITL motion was adopted 208-168.
This bill addresses causes of individual rights.
A motion to table passed 333-37.
This bill requires towns and school districts to use a warrant article every time they want to use a lobbyist to support their efforts in Concord.
Ralph Boehm (R-Litchfield) said that municipal boards often hire lobbyists working against voter interests. Ralph Maggiore (D-North Hampton) said there was bipartisan opposition to this bill because lobbying is useful for information at the local level
An ITL motion was adopted 224-148.
This bill addresses municipal master plans.
Len Turcotte (R-Barrington) said the bill provides onerous new requirements for municipalities. Laurel Stavis (D-Lebanon) says that this helps master plan laws catch up with the realities that municipalities now face.
An OTP motion was not adopted 176-193.
This bill addresses the adoption of health ordinances by municipalities.
Julie Gilman (D-Exeter) said this bill hurts small towns and other language regarding special meetings was vague.
Diane Pauer (R-Brookline) says this bill does not change current authorities of a town health officers.
An OTP motion was adopted 191-180
Laurel Stavis (D-Lebanon) later released the following statement.
“Republicans across the country are curtailing the work of state health officials, eroding our country’s ability to respond to public health crises. Today, House Republicans voted to strip municipal public health officials of their authority to safeguard public health and prevent pollution. If ultimately signed into law, this bill would require upwards of 1 year and tens of thousands of dollars for a special meeting before a community could decide for themselves if they were at risk of a public health crisis, infestation of insects, contaminated drinking water, seepage of sewage, or other health hazards. The Republican right-wing assault on public health is beyond disturbing and will have catastrophic consequences for our state.”
This bill addresses definition of qualified structures under the community revitalization tax relief incentive, also known as RSA 79E.
Supporters of the bill said this will help provide affordable housing and urban renovation.
Opponents of the bill felt it took the original intent of 79E, which focuses on downtowns, far out of its original context.
This bill addresses public playground accessibility for disabled people.
Supporters said it will help disabled people and elderly people with their family members better access playgrounds.
Opponents said it was superfluous to requirements of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act and was an unfunded mandate.
An OTP motion was adopted 193-180.
This bill prohibits municipal inspections of owner-occupied units of multi-unit housing.
Ross Berry (R-Manchester) said this doesn’t impact safety issues or situations where a permit is required, but arbitrary inspections by municipalities.
An ITL motion was not adopted, 179-191. An OTP motion was adopted 194-179.
This bill establishes deputy animal control officers.
A motion to table this bill was made. The motion was passed 293-73.
This bill addresses requiring the adoption of innovative vehicle emissions standards pursuant to section 177 of the federal Clean Air Act.
There was an amendment, which Doug Thomas (R-Londonderry) would turn the bill into a study committee that is not needed, since the result of the commission is likely to adopt California emissions standards. Rebecca McWilliams (D-Concord), said this amendment was recommended by New Hampshire auto dealers to prepare for new vehicle fuels such as hydrogen.
The amendment failed 171-194.
Thomas voiced concerns with the bill, stating it would put New Hampshire in line with states like New Jersey and California. McWilliams said without the amendment, the bill should be defeated.
Thomas later released the following statement.
“This extremist legislation supported by Democrat leadership would strip Granite State voters of their power and give it to California bureaucrats. Among the many dictates imposed by this bill, the most egregious is the outright ban on the sale of internal combustion engines by 2035. Although tech entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley have no issues paying $60,000 for an electric car, your average Granite Stater would disagree. We should let the free market dictate which cars consumers purchase. This is not the first time House Democrats have voted on this legislation. The last time they were in the majority, their caucus voted to pass it almost unanimously. Today their leadership team made it clear they fully intend to force Granite Staters to follow California law. If House Democrats want to ban gas-powered cars, they should at least give New Hampshire the opportunity to hold them accountable and not hide behind unelected officials in California.”
This bill customer generators of electricity as group hosts under net metering, expanding the process.
Opponents of the bill created cost shifting, with non-net metering customers paying more to subsidize net metering customers.
Jackie Chretien (D-Manchester) said this bill helps consumers save money and helps encourage renewable energy production.
An OTP motion was not adopted, 172-187. An ITL motion was adopted by a voice vote.
Michael Vose (R-Epping) released the following statement on this and other energy bills.
Today was another reminder of the stark contrast between the two parties on energy policy. While House Republicans fight for ratepayers, Democrats continue to show their radical agenda takes precedence over Granite Staters’ wallets. For the third straight term, House Democrats pushed a bill attempting to bring a carbon tax to New Hampshire. Let me be clear, House Republicans will never go along with destroying New Hampshire’s economy with an almost $1 billion tax increase.Transparency on our electric bills is absolutely critical. That is why House Republicans put forward a simple bill that would show the actual cost of the Renewable Portfolio Standard. Providing this information would come at no additional cost to ratepayers and give them a greater understanding of where their money is going. House Democrats apparently do not trust them with that information.So far this term, we have seen House Democrats vote to increase energy costs by over $500 million. It should be no surprise that they continued this trend today with their support of HB161. Last year, the state’s largest utility incurred over $20 million in costs for net metering. Passing this bill would allow individuals to “double dip” net metering benefits and only increase those costs. Every week is another reminder that Granite Staters simply cannot afford House Democrats’ energy policy.”
This bill provides a disclosure about electric renewable portfolio standards
Opponents of the bill say that it provides a bill regarding renewable energy, but does not show benefits.
An amendment passed 182-166
An OTPA motion was adopted 186-169.
This bill discussed relative to least cost integrated resource plan of utilities.
Opponents of the bill noted that the least cost integrated resource plan put forth by utilities must be cost effective for New Hampshire residents while also meeting New Hampshire’s energy plan and removing it would harm New Hampshire residents even if regulations regarding least cost integrated resource plans need to be updated.
Supporters of the bill say the primary purpose of the bill is to justify the placement of their new facilities, and the old reason for the plan no longer makes sense due to divestment.
An OTP motion was adopted, 184-168.
This is a bill relative to placement of personal wireless service facilities.
A motion to table the bill was made. It passed 309-41.
This bill would study carbon pricing.
Opponents of this bill felt that this would lead to a carbon tax.
Supporters of this bill said that the world is changing and the impact of carbon on the climate and new renewable energy industries must be examined.
An OTP motion was adopted 163-188.
This resolution seeks to hold companies responsible for global warning accountable to legal action.
Supporters of the resolution feel that those companies were aware of their impact on the climate and their harm to New Hampshire
Opponents of the resolution felt that supporters of the bill cherry-picked their data and they relied on conspiracy theories.
An ITL motion was adopted 189-158.
