Committee Summary for House Judiciary (02/09/2026)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
HB1631 00:09:09.360 - 9:08:30 AM	Public Hearing	relative to the contents of the attorney general's annual report detailing state forfeiture information for the preceding fiscal year.	Popovici-Muller, Daniel(R)[A-]2025
HB1130 2026-0410h 00:34:07.600 - 9:33:28 AM	Executive Session	relative to judicial performance evaluations.	Lynn, Bob(R)[B]2025
HB1639 2026-0542h 01:02:57.920 - 10:02:18 AM	Executive Session	establishing investigatory grand juries housed under the county sheriffs' offices.	Kelley, Diane(R)[A-]2025
HB1634 01:23:20.239 - 10:22:41 AM	Public Hearing	establishing state court remedies for violations of state and federal law by federal employees.	Read, Ellen(D)[D]2025
HB1702 03:06:07.760 - 12:05:28 PM	Public Hearing	relative to notice requirements and enforcement for pharmacies dispensing medications intended to induce chemical abortions.	Farrington, Samuel(R)[A+]2025
HB1769 03:31:10.880 - 12:30:31 PM	Public Hearing	relative to certain prohibitions on abortion referrals by publicly funded medical facilities.	Farrington, Samuel(R)[A+]2025
HB1801 04:01:44.640 - 1:01:05 PM	Public Hearing	relative to causes of action for wrongful detention, drug forfeiture proceedings, the regulation of law enforcement officers, and the offense of unsworn falsification.	Read, Ellen(D)[D]2025
HR28 04:45:09.680 - 1:44:30 PM	Public Hearing	requesting the opinion of the justices clarifying the scope of the state's constitutional obligations concerning education.	McFarlane, Donald(R)[A]2025
HR29 05:00:50.080 - 2:00:11 PM	Public Hearing	requesting an opinion of the justices on the scope of part II, article 4 of the New Hampshire constitution, as well as other related articles.	McFarlane, Donald(R)[A]2025
Unclear 05:04:45.600 - 2:04:06 PM	General Working Session	Unclear

HB1631: Representative Daniel Popovich Mueller, Rockingham 17 Support00:09:09.360 - 9:08:30 AM; Representative Mueller introduced HB 1631, explaining that the current statutory requirements for the Attorney General's annual report on civil forfeiture are insufficient for informing policy decisions. He noted that a similar bill passed last term but did not advance further, and this version addresses previous objections by being less comprehensive. He emphasized the importance of measurable data to assess policy effectiveness, particularly in civil forfeiture where asset confiscation is separate from criminal proceedings, often disadvantaging less wealthy individuals who cannot afford to litigate recovery. He addressed committee questions on duplicative reporting of ongoing cases, suggesting the inclusion of case numbers allows unique identification, though he is open to reporting only finalized cases. He clarified that the bill adds specific data fields (lines 7-28) without significantly increasing costs, as indicated by the fiscal note deeming it immaterial.
HB1631: Josh Spicer, Senior Assistant Attorney General, NH Attorney General's Office Oppose00:20:14.720 - 9:19:35 AM; Josh Spicer, chief of the drug prosecution unit, testified on behalf of the Department of Justice, expressing concerns about increased administrative costs and, more critically, safety and privacy risks. He highlighted that including criminal and civil forfeiture case numbers and courts (subsections H and J) could link information to individuals, potentially exposing them to harm by publicizing details of seized drugs and cash. He noted that the current report only includes seizing agency and amount, without links to specific cases or individuals. Spicer mentioned ongoing discussions with the sponsor and that his office does not use the reported information for secondary purposes, producing it solely for the annual report. He also raised issues with gathering data on federal forfeiture activities, to which the AG's office is not connected.
HB1631: Josh Spicer, Senior Assistant Attorney General, NH Attorney General's Office Oppose00:25:04.559 - 9:24:25 AM; Spicer continues responding to committee questions, expressing concerns about the bill's requirements in subsections H and J, particularly regarding the publication of information that could create a public list of forfeiture cases, potentially compromising privacy and safety by making it easier for individuals to identify and locate cases involving drugs or cash seizures without prior knowledge. He notes that while criminal and forfeiture cases are public records, the aggregated reporting would provide new opportunities for misuse. He also states that the additional information from the bill would not provide new opportunities for the Attorney General's office, as they already handle these cases. Regarding reporting, he respectfully declines to comment on the usefulness for legislators but suggests a summary after cases close might be preferable.
HB1631: Alistair Whitney, Legislative Counsel, Institute for Justice Support00:29:49.039 - 9:29:10 AM; Whitney testifies in support of HB 1631, emphasizing that the bill promotes transparency and good governance by requiring better collection and reporting of civil forfeiture data without prohibiting forfeitures or limiting law enforcement. He argues that lawmakers and the public need reliable data to oversee and evaluate this powerful state tool, addressing privacy concerns by noting that seizure locations are reported by zip code, not specific addresses, and that civil and criminal case details are already public. He clarifies that the bill does not require reporting federal forfeiture data, only referencing federal crimes for state charges. In response to a question, he states that his organization and the public, including the General Court, would use the data to understand how civil forfeiture is applied to residents and others in the state.
HB1130 2026-0410h: Chairman Lynn Information Only00:34:07.600 - 9:33:28 AM; The chairman moves to reconsider the previous decision on HB 1130, which passes unanimously (15 yes, 1 no). He then moves to adopt amendment 2026-0410h, which excludes questionnaire comments from the published judicial evaluation report to address concerns from judges about potentially scandalous or biased public comments from dissatisfied litigants. He notes that comments will still be reviewed internally by the judicial branch. He explains that the bill enhances the evaluation process by adding in-court observations and statistical case processing analysis, and publicizing scores (without comments) encourages better judicial performance through accountability.
HB1130 2026-0410h: Representative (unnamed) Information Only00:39:32.320 - 9:38:53 AM; The representative questions the chairman on how the amendment and bill improve judicial accountability and decision-making quality, expressing concern that evaluations may be skewed by responses from unhappy litigants who did not prevail, potentially not reflecting true judicial integrity or professionalism.
HB1130 2026-0410h: Unnamed Representative Oppose00:43:38.720 - 9:42:59 AM; The speaker argues that the amendment is not designed to improve judicial behavior but to make judges more wary due to fear of inappropriate evaluations, rather than merit-based assessment.
HB1130 2026-0410h: Representative Burch Oppose00:46:08.480 - 9:45:29 AM; Representative Burch expresses strong opposition to the amendment, highlighting the risks of linking individual judges' names to scores. This could lead to political politicization, weaponization, and 'swatting' effects, undermining judicial independence. It allows groups to pile on evaluations, resulting in published low scores without effective recourse, potentially worse than the original bill. Legislators can distinguish group efforts from individual ones, but this system would attach public scores to targeted judges without nuance.
HB1130 2026-0410h: Representative Smith Oppose00:48:36.000 - 9:47:57 AM; Representative Smith opposes the public disclosure of individual judge scores, arguing that it does not educate the public or improve judicial behavior and may reward bad behavior regardless of political side.
HB1130 2026-0410h: Representative Turk Oppose00:49:23.119 - 9:48:44 AM; Representative Turk agrees with previous comments and suggests removing public disclosure entirely, noting that erroneous comments could still affect scores without context, while other bill elements improve the process.
HB1130 2026-0410h: Unidentified Representative (possibly sponsor) Support00:50:28.559 - 9:49:49 AM; The representative supports retaining the scoring component as part of broader transparency, explaining that court observations and case processing times will still be released. They differentiate from the current system by noting that individual judge names would be public instead of anonymous rankings, allowing for notes on potential biases, and emphasize the balance achieved with judicial branch input.
HB1130 2026-0410h: Unidentified Representative (possibly sponsor, continued) Support00:51:24.720 - 9:50:45 AM; Continuing, the representative details the bill's history, collaboration with the chief justice, and amendments addressing circuit court concerns. They confirm the judicial branch's comfort with the amended bill and offer to answer questions via Ms. Warren present.
HB1130 2026-0410h: Representative Bers Information Only00:55:10.880 - 9:54:31 AM; Representative Bers asks if the sponsor conferred with the judicial council on the evaluation system improvements.
HB1130 2026-0410h: Representative Turk Oppose00:56:17.119 - 9:55:38 AM; Representative Turk expresses concern that public individual scores imply judges are not equal, potentially allowing litigants to cite low scores to undermine convictions, and worries about creating flawed metrics that could be manipulated.
HB1130 2026-0410h: Unidentified Representative (possibly sponsor) Support00:57:35.839 - 9:56:56 AM; The representative acknowledges concerns but counters that public scores could incentivize judges to improve behavior for accountability.
HB1130 2026-0410h: Committee Chair Information Only00:58:44.000 - 9:58:05 AM; The chair calls for a roll call vote on the amendment 2026-0410h, which passes 9-7.
HB1130 2026-0410h: Committee Chair Information Only00:59:41.599 - 9:59:02 AM; The chair calls for a roll call vote on the main motion for Ought to Pass as Amended (OTPA) on HB 1130, which passes 9-7. Discussion follows on reports, with Representative Smith to handle the minority report.
HB1130 2026-0410h: Committee Chair Information Only01:01:56.640 - 10:01:17 AM; The chair closes the executive session on HB 1130 and opens one on HB 1639, recognizing Representative Cout for a motion on OTPA with amendment 2026-0542h.
HB1639 2026-0542h: Representative Cout Support01:02:57.920 - 10:02:18 AM; Representative Cout moves for OTPA with amendment 2026-0542h, which changes wording in the bill.
HB1639 2026-0542h: Representative First Oppose01:04:44.559 - 10:04:05 AM; Representative First opposes the amendment, wishing for testimony on the major change to grand jury proceedings. They question if the new procedure is civil or criminal, highlight constitutional and legal differences, lack of operational procedures, and Supreme Court rulings limiting citizen-convened grand juries to executive authority. They express concerns over secrecy, potential political misuse, conflicts of interest, and lack of prosecutorial discretion, allowing runaway grand juries to harm reputations without oversight.
HB1639 2026-0542h: Unidentified Representative Oppose01:11:24.800 - 10:10:45 AM; The speaker criticizes the lack of limitations on grand jury requests for records and emphasizes that grand juries do not run the show under New Hampshire rules of criminal procedure, which focus on prosecutors. They highlight the absence of public hearings and input from civil libertarians, ACLU, criminal defense bar, judiciary, and prosecutors, urging a vote against the amendment.
HB1639 2026-0542h: Representative Tur Oppose01:13:14.320 - 10:12:35 AM; Representative Tur notes that the amendment deviates significantly from the original bill and arose from testimony about grand jury instructions. As a non-lawyer, they express ignorance of grand jury powers under existing rules and concern about inserting new text without public or expert input. They support the last part of the amendment (section 600:7) but oppose the rest, suggesting it warrants its own bill rather than an amendment to a bill without testimony.
HB1639 2026-0542h: Committee Clerk Information Only01:15:26.719 - 10:14:47 AM; The clerk calls the roll for the vote on amendment 2026-0542h, resulting in 8 yes and 7 no votes.
HB1639 2026-0542h: Committee Clerk Information Only01:16:32.239 - 10:15:53 AM; The clerk calls the roll for the main motion on HB 1639 ought to pass as amended, resulting in an 8-8 tie.
HB1639 2026-0542h: Representative Burch Oppose01:17:26.080 - 10:16:47 AM; Representative Burch moves for Inexpedient to Legislate (ITL) on HB 1639.
HB1639 2026-0542h: Committee Clerk Information Only01:18:29.920 - 10:17:50 AM; The clerk calls the roll for the ITL motion, resulting in 7 yes and 9 no votes.
HB1639 2026-0542h: Representative Alexander Support01:19:52.480 - 10:19:13 AM; Representative Alexander moves for interim study on HB 1639, arguing for more study as no other motion will pass.
HB1639 2026-0542h: Unidentified Representative Support01:19:52.480 - 10:19:13 AM; The speaker supports the interim study motion, stating it is important enough not to send to the floor without recommendation.
HB1639 2026-0542h: Committee Clerk Information Only01:21:07.040 - 10:20:28 AM; The clerk calls the roll for the interim study motion, resulting in 14 yes and 2 no votes. Discussion follows about writing the report and a minority report.
HB1639 2026-0542h: Representative Burch Oppose01:22:00.960 - 10:21:21 AM; Representative Burch declines to write the report and indicates their motion will be Ought to Pass (OTP).
HB1634: Representative Ellen Reed, Rockingham 10 (Newmarket and Newfields) Support01:23:20.239 - 10:22:41 AM; Representative Reed explains that HB 1634 addresses the inability to sue federal workers, including post office, FBI, and IRS agents, for violating state laws or rights, creating a class above the law. The bill extends state right of action to federal agents without negating sovereign immunity, allowing cases to proceed to court. Five states, including Maine, have passed similar laws, aligning with NH constitutional principles of equal application of law. She offers to answer questions and notes an expert is present.
HB1634: Alistair Whitney, Institute for Justice Support01:28:37.280 - 10:27:58 AM; Alistair Whitney supports HB 1634, describing it as addressing an accountability gap for federal officers violating constitutional rights. Existing federal remedies like the Federal Tort Claims Act and 42 USC 1983 have eroded, leaving little recourse and insulating federal officials unlike state and local ones. The bill provides a state law remedy in state court without expanding rights or regulating federal operations, restoring damages for violations in NH jurisdiction. He offers to answer questions.
HB1634: Alistair Whitney, Institute for Justice Support01:31:26.800 - 10:30:47 AM; Continued testimony clarifying that the bill addresses federal employees operating outside federal statute or law, allowing constitutional claims in state court. It does not interfere with federal employees acting within their duties, such as an ICE agent performing authorized tasks. The bill provides an avenue for relief without impacting substantive rights, and cases could be removed to federal court if needed.
HB1634: Representative Jonah Orion Wheeler, representing Peterborough and Sharon Support01:37:50.239 - 10:37:11 AM; As co-sponsor, supports the bill affirming that individuals whose rights are violated by the federal government under state law should have access to state courts. Briefly mentions support for related bill HB 1631 on civil forfeiture data.
HB1634: Representative Muller Support01:40:54.480 - 10:40:15 AM; Introduces HB 1665 as a simple bill amending the Administrative Procedure Act to grant all parties equal subpoena authority in proceedings, addressing the imbalance where state agencies have more resources. Emphasizes fairness for licensees protecting their livelihoods, ensuring equal ability to produce evidence without changing existing definitions.
HB1634: Diana Jurus, Executive Director, Office of Professional Licensure and Certification Information Only01:47:04.080 - 10:46:25 AM; Provides neutral information on current practices in OPLC, where subpoena power is held by presiding officers like administrative law judges, ensuring discretion and front-end review. Notes the bill would eliminate this, potentially leading to unregulated subpoenas, motions to quash, extended timelines, and broader application to entities like town planning boards under RSA 541-A. Offers to follow up with staff on technical questions.
HB1634: Diana Jurus, Executive Director, Office of Professional Licensure and Certification Information Only01:51:02.400 - 10:50:23 AM; The witness responds to committee questions regarding the interpretation of HB 1634, particularly on subpoena issuance in administrative proceedings. She explains that standards for reasonable subpoenas still apply, and while a motion to quash could address unreasonable ones, it adds extra process and time, especially for non-attorneys. She describes current internal guardrails for subpoena requests, including providing details on the records or witnesses needed, to ensure relevance and level the playing field between parties.
HB1702: Representative Sam Farington, City of Rochester Support03:06:07.760 - 12:05:28 PM; Representative Farington introduces HB 1702, explaining it requires informed consent for chemical abortion by notifying women of the possibility to reverse the effects of mifepristone using abortion pill reversal with progesterone. He describes the two-step chemical abortion process and emphasizes the bill does not ban abortions but informs women of options. He cites studies showing 60% of women regret abortions and that reversal is safe and effective 64-68% of the time, having saved over 7,000 lives. Over 1,500 doctors participate in the network, and women deserve to know all options.
HB1702: Representative Organ Information Only03:09:20.080 - 12:08:41 PM; Representative Organ questions the bill sponsor about lines 11-21, noting similarity to an Oklahoma bill, and asks about 'Option Line by Heartbeat International' mentioned without a phone number in the NH bill. The sponsor clarifies that medical facilities will insert the phone number on posted signs. Organ follows up asking about other states with similar bills; the sponsor notes no states have enacted it yet, as it's pro-life informing choices without banning abortion, unlike in southern states.
HB1702: Representative Andrews Information Only03:11:30.960 - 12:10:51 PM; Representative Andrews asks why the bill is necessary, questioning why providers aren't already giving full options when prescribing the pill. The sponsor responds that providers are profit-seeking and push one narrative, so the bill ensures women see the full picture, including effective reversal options.
HB1702: Representative James Tibo, City of Franklin and Town of Northfield Support03:12:12.240 - 12:11:33 PM; Representative Tibo supports HB 1702, stressing informed consent as a bedrock of medical practice, entitling patients to full information before treatment, including abortion options. He highlights cases of regret after mifepristone and the potential to reverse before the second pill to prevent fetal death or need for medical attention. The bill's requirements are reasonable, requiring only posting a sign, empowering women to make informed decisions without mandating choices, and promoting transparency to save lives.
HB1702: Dr. Charlotte Hastings, OBGYN in New Hampshire Oppose03:14:27.359 - 12:13:48 PM; Dr. Hastings testified in strong opposition to HB 1702, arguing that it mandates providers and pharmacies to give false and dangerous information about abortion reversal. She explained that claims of abortion reversal using progesterone lack scientific evidence and are not supported by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. She detailed the medication abortion process involving mifepristone and misoprostol, noting their safety and efficacy. She criticized the foundational 2012 case series as unethical and lacking proper oversight, and mentioned a 2020 randomized trial halted due to hemorrhage risks. She emphasized that such mandates endanger patient health and contradict ethical, evidence-based medicine, stressing that abortion is essential care deserving respect.
HB1702: Representative Mary Hacken Phillips, NH House Oppose03:18:43.520 - 12:18:04 PM; Rep. Phillips spoke against HB 1702, countering the sponsor's claim that it is a straightforward informed consent bill, calling it disingenuous. As a woman of reproductive age, she stated she does not want this bill, noting it would attack providers by providing misinformation to patients. She highlighted that it opposes the governor's stance and would not improve healthcare or abortion dialogue. She argued the legislature has no place in patient-provider conversations, which could demean women needing drugs for miscarriages, not just elective abortions. She urged killing the bill to avoid criminalizing providers and allow physicians to be experts.
HB1702: Hazel Kaine, law student Oppose03:21:29.840 - 12:20:50 PM; Hazel Kaine opposed HB 1702, building on prior testimony about scientific flaws by focusing on constitutional concerns, particularly First Amendment issues. She argued the bill forces doctors and pharmacists to provide free advertising for the anti-abortion group Heartbeat International, undercutting medical business and judgment. It implies providers need state force for informed consent, fostering animosity and discouraging care-seeking. She suggested if the state wants to advocate anti-abortion policies, it should do so directly rather than co-opting medical establishments to promote misleading claims.
HB1702: Liz Canada, Advocacy Director at Planned Parenthood of Northern New England Oppose03:24:10.319 - 12:23:31 PM; Liz Canada opposed HB 1702, reiterating its medical inaccuracy on abortion pill reversal and First Amendment violations. She noted the sponsor's uncertainty about similar laws, citing a Tennessee case where a Trump-appointed judge ruled such compelled speech untruthful and misleading. She described Heartbeat International as an anti-abortion organization, arguing the bill imposes an ideological stance on health centers and pharmacies that may disagree.
HB1769: Representative Sam Fington, City of Rochester Support03:31:10.880 - 12:30:31 PM; Rep. Fington introduced HB 1769, stating its purpose is to ensure informed choice so mothers know all pregnancy options. He mentioned about a dozen pregnancy resource centers in New Hampshire providing free counseling, medical care, and family support services statewide.
HB1769: Unidentified Speaker Support03:32:09.600 - 12:31:30 PM; The speaker supports HB 1769, explaining that pregnancy resource centers provide valuable support without referring for abortions. The bill requires publicly funded medical facilities that refer for abortions to also refer to pregnancy resource centers, ensuring balanced information about options without intruding on private practice or forcing decisions. This prevents one-sided steering toward abortion using taxpayer dollars.
HB1769: Representative James Seabolt, Franklin and Northfield Support03:34:00.880 - 12:33:21 PM; Representative Seabolt supports HB 1769, similar to HB 1702, as it requires publicly funded facilities referring to abortion clinics to also provide referrals to pregnancy resource centers. This informs women of support options, including counseling and adoption, helping them make informed decisions without forcing outcomes. He emphasizes its role in health transparency and informed consent, urging an ought to pass recommendation.
HB1769: Dr. Charlotte Hastings, OBGYN Oppose03:35:51.279 - 12:35:12 PM; Dr. Hastings opposes HB 1769 based on her experience in Texas, where restrictions led to poor outcomes like child pregnancies and untreated ectopic pregnancies. She argues the bill interferes with patient-provider relationships, reduces access to abortion for low-income and rural patients, and forces referrals to misleading crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) that provide inaccurate information. This erodes trust and equates evidence-based care with misinformation, urging inexpedient to legislate. During questioning, she maintains opposition even in emergencies due to CPCs' inaccuracies, distinguishing between bias and factual errors.
HB1769: Tara Bishop, Diocese of Manchester Support03:40:57.760 - 12:40:18 PM; Tara Bishop supports the bill on behalf of the Diocese of Manchester and a pregnancy center, highlighting services like free pregnancy tests, referrals to medical facilities, practical aid (diapers, clothing, formula, car seats), counseling, rent assistance, and immigration help, all privately funded. She shares stories of supporting abortion-minded women, including immigrants, through pregnancies, adoptions, and long-term aid, emphasizing listening and providing hope without forcing decisions. Centers vary but offer vital options to ensure women know they are not alone.
HB1769: Kayla Montgomery, Vice President of Public Affairs, Planned Parenthood of Northern New England Oppose03:45:02.720 - 12:44:23 PM; Kayla Montgomery opposes HB 1769 because it would require medical professionals to deliver misinformation to patients and force providers referring to abortion centers to also refer to anti-abortion centers, risking funding. She explains that anti-abortion centers, or crisis pregnancy centers, do not offer comprehensive medical care, information, or abortion referrals, and some may delay care. They are unregulated unlike licensed medical providers. The bill impacts community health centers serving low-income patients, such as those in the New Hampshire Family Planning Network (Lamprey, Amoskeag, and KOAS), who submitted a letter opposing it. She notes a similar federal 'gag rule' caused providers to leave the program rather than comply. The bill raises First Amendment concerns by compelling speech as a condition for referrals. She urges opposition.
HB1769: Rachel Potter, Policy Associate, ACLU of New Hampshire Oppose03:48:59.520 - 12:48:20 PM; Rachel Potter urges finding HB 1769 inexpedient to legislate due to serious First Amendment and constitutional concerns. The bill regulates speech by scripting what healthcare providers must say to patients if they accept public funds, requiring pairing abortion referrals with referrals to pregnancy resource centers that do not provide abortions. This is compelled speech in private medical conversations, which the Supreme Court has protected against, especially in reproductive health contexts. It intrudes on the provider-patient relationship and viewpoint-based regulation deserving strict scrutiny. The compliance affidavit and private enforcement create a chilling effect on honest counseling, harming trust and public health. Reproductive decisions are private under constitutional protections, including New Hampshire's right to privacy. Politicians should not script medical conversations, regardless of views on abortion.
HB1769: Jason Hennessy, President, New Hampshire Right to Life Support03:53:09.040 - 12:52:30 PM; Jason Hennessy supports HB 1769 as it promotes informed choice, including the choice to choose life. He highlights resources available at pregnancy centers, such as housing, strollers, and diapers, which help women decide to carry pregnancies to term—resources not promoted by abortion providers. Federally, policies like the Mexico City policy and Title X referrals mirror this. Studies show many women do not want abortions and face mental health implications. The bill requires posting information about help resources. Most pregnancy centers in New Hampshire (about 15) are donor-funded and take no tax dollars. He addresses concerns: the bill includes an emergency exception under RSA 329:50-B, paragraph 1A. Claims of misinformation from centers are unsubstantiated, as seen in Massachusetts where no complaints were found despite campaigns against them. Federal courts have struck down such actions.
HB1769: Hazel Kaine Oppose03:57:15.520 - 12:56:36 PM; Hazel Kaine opposes HB 1769, citing constitutional concerns (First Amendment free speech and freedom of religion) and policy issues. It forces physicians to refer to competitors (anti-abortion centers affiliated with religious institutions), compelling secular entities to support religious organizations with anti-abortion agendas. Medical facilities can undermine referrals by disclaiming them as not medically sound. The bill doesn't provide real options. Analogously, requiring ob-gyns for intended pregnancies to refer to Planned Parenthood for abortion would be shocking and disgusting. It guilt-trips women seeking abortions. Pregnancy resource centers are well-known and controversial; those with moral reservations about abortion wouldn't seek secular providers anyway. Institutions like Catholic Medical Center in Manchester don't recommend abortions. She recommends marking inexpedient to legislate.
HB1801: Representative Ellen Reed, Rockingham 10 (Newmarket and Newfields) Support04:01:44.640 - 1:01:05 PM; Representative Ellen Reed, prime sponsor, supports HB 1801, which addresses four areas: 1) Special provisions for wrongful detention actions with automatic $100/hour compensation (COLA-adjusted), shifting burden to departments to prove lawfulness, incentivizing constitutional compliance and reducing scandals from bad actors. 2) Modifies civil forfeiture procedures for drug offenses (details deferred to expert). 3) Adds psychological screening for law enforcement certification to weed out those seeking power trips, akin to military practices excluding military police aspirants. 4) Makes it a violation for officers to knowingly provide false information in written reports, addressing constituent reports of fabricated hostility in cases without body cams. She emphasizes supporting good cops by holding bad ones accountable, as wrongful detentions cause significant personal and economic harm.
HB1801: Alistair Whitney, Institute for Justice Support04:12:50.319 - 1:12:11 PM; Alistair Whitney from the Institute for Justice supports HB 1801. It reforms civil forfeiture by incorporating criminal forfeiture elements: providing public defender services to property owners, prompt post-seizure hearings, and barring seizures of low-value property below thresholds in the bill. The committee is familiar with these reforms.
HB1801: Lauren Warner, Deputy General Counsel, Judicial Branch Information Only04:15:51.359 - 1:15:12 PM; Lauren Warner states the Judicial Branch takes no position on HB 1801 but provides fiscal note details: initial costs of $10,000-$100,000 for updating rules, forms, systems, and training; ongoing $10,000 annually. DOJ fiscal note estimates $100,000-$500,000, potentially for one attorney position (~$130,000/year) plus costs, possibly not per year. She highlights concerns on page 4, lines 35-37: requiring the same judge for criminal and civil forfeiture matters could constrain judicial flexibility, cause backlogs, and affect statutory time frames. Suggests striking the same-judge requirement. Changing 'Department of Justice' to 'state' broadens involvement to other agencies like Department of Safety and county attorneys, requiring additional training. She clarifies her fiscal note is separate from DOJ's.
HB1801: Representative Reid Information Only04:21:40.479 - 1:21:01 PM; Representative Reid briefly addressed a question from Rep. Trip regarding changes in bill language, explaining that the Office of the Secretary of State (OS) is making corrective measures to broaden language, such as changing 'he' to 'he/she' or expanding department references, and promised to provide more information later.
HB1801: Jason Henry, Superintendent of Rockingham County Jail Oppose04:22:35.279 - 1:21:56 PM; Jason Henry expressed concerns about the wrongful detention provisions in the bill, noting that it creates a new cause of action with mandatory hourly statutory damages and shifts the burden to the state after a prima facie case. He highlighted potential financial liability for county jails despite good faith efforts, given constrained budgets. He questioned the role of jails in detentions based on court documents and worried about increased administrative burdens from inmate grievances and paperwork.
HB1801: John Skiba, Director of New Hampshire Police Standards and Training Information Only04:24:16.880 - 1:23:37 PM; John Skiba provided information on the bill's third point regarding certification of law enforcement officers terminated for cause from federal or other state agencies. He suggested clarifying language from 'for any other state' to 'in any other state' and noted that 'terminated for cause' could include minor employment issues, not just serious misconduct. He explained existing council rules to prevent 'wandering cops' using the National Decertification Index (NDI) and current processes requiring hearings for certification after separations under dishonorable conditions or decertifications. He emphasized that the proposed language lacks a hearing process for non-prohibitive cases. In response to questions, he confirmed that psychological screenings are already required initially and discussed implications for officers found in misconduct but still certified, suggesting hearings for any flagged re-screenings every 5 years post-misconduct. He addressed loopholes in past separations with non-disclosure agreements, noting that recent changes to RSA 106L require investigations and disclosures, along with RSA 41 mandating prior employer information sharing and court precedents like Provenza ensuring public access to relevant documents.
HB1801: Eric Cataldo, Lieutenant, Manchester NH Police Department, on behalf of New Hampshire Chiefs of Police Association Oppose04:37:27.760 - 1:36:48 PM; Eric Cataldo testified in opposition to HB 1801, stating that while the bill's intent is appreciated, it is overly broad and duplicative of existing laws, certification standards, internal investigations, and state oversight. He argued it would create new processes and liabilities increasing litigation and administrative burdens without improving accountability. He referenced detailed written testimony refuting points in each section and offered to answer questions. In response to a question, he confirmed his role in special enforcement handling organized crime and drug investigations.
HB1801: Unnamed Law Enforcement Witness Information Only04:40:26.400 - 1:39:47 PM; The witness discusses the process of asset forfeiture, explaining that after issuing a 7-day notice, materials like 302 reports and surveillance tapes are sent to the Attorney General's office for discovery, which aligns closely with criminal processes. He notes that he handles assets but does not prosecute cases. In response to questions about a hypothetical involving Jake from Massachusetts, the witness explains that if the vehicle belongs to a potential future target, they would consider withholding forfeiture to avoid revealing ongoing investigation details through civil discovery. He acknowledges that under the bill's 30-day filing requirement, civil discovery could provide early access to sensitive information about ongoing investigations.
HR28: Representative Kevin Scully, District 8, Hillsborough County Support04:45:09.680 - 1:44:30 PM; Representative Scully introduces House Resolution 28 on behalf of Representative McFarland, who is ill. He explains that the resolution seeks an advisory opinion from the Supreme Court justices under Part II, Article 74 of the New Hampshire Constitution to clarify constitutional obligations regarding education, particularly in light of budget impacts and ongoing legislative measures on funding adequacy and judicial remedies. Reading from McFarland's testimony, Scully emphasizes that the resolution is not dictating law or challenging judicial independence but invoking Article 74 to prevent uncertainty and institutional conflict. He notes the importance of understanding Part II, Article 83's interaction with legislative authority over taxation and appropriations, and mentions an amendment intended to replace the original bill. Scully declines to answer detailed questions.
HR28: Representative John Sers, District 10, Grafton County (Bristol and Bridgewater) Support04:51:30.320 - 1:50:51 PM; Representative Sers supports the resolution, arguing it is necessary to clarify the meaning of 'cherish' in the context of constitutional education obligations. He references a Bible verse from 1 Kings 1:2 in the King James Version, where 'cherish' is used not in the sense of providing money or funding, suggesting the term may not imply financial support as currently interpreted. Sers advocates for the advisory opinion to allow the public and legislature to understand the justices' view, emphasizing the need to explore original meanings, potentially even in Hebrew, to resolve ongoing debates.
HR29: Representative John Sers, District 10, Grafton County (Bristol and Bridgewater) Support05:00:50.080 - 2:00:11 PM; Representative Sers introduces House Resolution 29 on behalf of Representative McFarland, disclosing he is a co-sponsor. The resolution seeks an advisory opinion from the Supreme Court on the scope of Part II, Article 4, including its exception clause referencing Article 72A, and related provisions like 73A, to clarify the separation of powers among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Sers expresses concern over whether the judiciary has the power to make laws or self-administer, potentially overriding legislative authority, and cites examples like federal judicial interference in state inspection laws. He argues the opinion is needed to understand the justices' stance and guide the General Court's future actions.
Unclear: Committee Chair and Members Information Only05:04:45.600 - 2:04:06 PM; The chair closes the hearing on HR 29 and addresses committee business, including reminders for report writers on bills HB 1130 and HB 1639 to submit by 10:00 a.m. the next day. Discussion covers scheduling for upcoming hearings and executive sessions, confirming no committee meeting on Wednesday due to full House session but meetings on Friday the 20th for hearings and potential executive actions. Members confirm availability and discuss report timelines, noting the holiday weekend and need for expedition given additional hearings.
Unclear: Committee Chair Information Only05:09:05.760 - 2:08:26 PM; The chair discusses upcoming committee schedule, including a meeting on the 20th, hearings on the 25th during vacation week, and an executive session on the 27th. Notes that Representative Perez will be absent on the 27th and asks others to inform if unavailable. Explains committee rules on noticing executive sessions, referencing advice from Paul that prevents flexibility in scheduling, such as holding executive sessions on hearing days if bills are pre-listed. Suggests alternatives like scheduling work sessions to allow executive actions on pending legislation without prior listing, as done by other committees.
Unclear: Committee Member Information Only05:09:54.400 - 2:09:15 PM; The member clarifies that the reference is to 'Paul the lesser,' not themselves, and jokes about not being on camera.
Unclear: Committee Chair Information Only05:11:06.480 - 2:10:27 PM; The chair continues discussing procedural options, emphasizing that work sessions can include notices for potential executive actions on any pending bills, avoiding restrictions from pre-listing. Acknowledges that this approach works for upcoming hearing days where bills haven't been listed yet.
Unclear: Committee Member Information Only05:12:20.160 - 2:11:41 PM; The member advises against listing bills specifically for executive sessions to maintain flexibility, noting that as long as bills are listed for hearings, the committee can take executive action without issue.
Unclear: Committee Chair Information Only05:13:23.120 - 2:12:44 PM; The chair questions the rationale behind the rule, suggesting it might be to inform interested parties of the exact date, preventing confusion if actions are taken earlier.
Unclear: Committee Member Information Only05:13:23.120 - 2:12:44 PM; The member agrees that the rule likely exists to avoid misleading people who expect action only on the noticed date.
Unclear: Committee Chair Information Only05:13:23.120 - 2:12:44 PM; The chair asks if there's anything else to discuss and then recesses the committee.

Lynn, Bob(Chairman)(R)[B]2025	Kuttab, Katelyn(Clerk)(R)[B]2025	Mannion, Dennis(V Chairman)(R)[B+]2025
Smith, Marjorie(D)[F]2025	Bergeron, Dan(D)[F]2025	Horrigan, Timothy(D)[F]2025
Berch, Paul(D)[F]2025	Turer, Eric(D)[F]2025	Scully, Kevin(R)[A-]2025
Tripp, Richard(R)[B]2025	Andrus, Louise(R)[C+]2025	Ball, Lorie(R)[B+]2025
Manos, Zoe(D)[CT]2025	Perez, Kristine(R)[B+]2025	Alexander, Joe(R)[A+]2025
McFarlane, Donald(R)[A]2025	Rombeau, Catherine(D)[CT]2025	Paige, Mark(D)[D-]2025