Committee Summary for House Judiciary (02/19/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
HB148 00:01:52.840 - 8:02:28 AM	Public Hearing	permitting classification of individuals based on biological sex under certain circumstances.	Kofalt, Jim(R)[A+]2024
HB641 04:04:59.960 - 12:05:35 PM	Public Hearing	establishing a private right of action for civil rights violations.	Harriott-Gathright, Linda(D)[CT]2024
HB633 05:32:17.718 - 1:32:53 PM	Public Hearing	relative to housing investment trusts.	Daniels, Gary(R)
HB611 06:16:18.478 - 2:16:54 PM	Public Hearing	abolishing recoupment procedures regarding appointed counsel for indigent criminal defendants.	Scherr, Buzz(D)

HB148: Jim Kofalt, Representative for Hillsboro County District 32, representing Wilton, Temple, and New Ipswich Support00:01:52.840 - 8:02:28 AM; Representative Kofalt introduced House Bill 148, noting it is identical to House Bill 396 from the previous year, which was vetoed by the governor. He explained that the bill addresses three specific situations: intimate spaces (bathrooms and locker rooms), houses of correction, and certain athletic competitions, stating that the bill would allow for the separation of biological sexes in these situations without it being considered discriminatory. He emphasized that the bill does not mandate separation, unlike House Bill 125, which only applied to sports. Kofalt shared an example from Milford where a biological male was allegedly misusing access to girls' locker rooms, and stressed that the bill aims to provide local school boards with discretion to create policies that ensure safety and respect for all students, without being pressured by external legal threats. He responded to questions about the definition of 'biological sex', asserting that it's commonly understood and does not require a legal definition within the bill. He also addressed concerns about the bill's necessity by citing instances in several school districts where similar issues have been raised.
HB148: Karen Leo Hill, Executive Counselor for District 2, representing 81 cities and towns Oppose00:17:53.559 - 8:18:29 AM; Executive Counselor Hill opposed House Bill 148, citing New Hampshire's leadership in anti-discrimination protections and referencing Governor Sununu's veto message from the previous year regarding the identical bill. She argued that the bill contradicts the state's commitment to non-discrimination and the 'Live Free or Die' motto, urging the committee to vote it as inexpedient to legislate.
HB148: Alice Wade, Strafford District 15, Ward 2 Oppose00:19:07.200 - 8:19:43 AM; Alice Wade, a transgender woman from Strafford District 15, Ward 2, strongly opposes HB148. She argues that the bill lacks any legitimate public benefit and targets transgender individuals unfairly. Wade shared her personal experience of using women's restrooms without issues for over six years, emphasizing that even if she did not 'pass' as a cisgender woman, she should still be allowed to use the restroom peacefully. She questioned the practicality and ethics of enforcing such a law, mentioning potential methods like checking birth certificates or conducting genital inspections, and highlighted severe consequences in other states like Florida and Texas. She urged the committee not to pass the bill unless they could justify its enforcement.
HB148: Lawrence Seig, Durham, Strafford County District 10 Oppose00:21:54.799 - 8:22:30 AM; Lawrence Seig from Durham, representing Strafford County District 10, strongly opposes HB148, viewing it as discriminatory. As a parent, Seig shared experiences of his children on a swim team with transgender athletes, noting that changing facilities were used respectfully with individual stalls. He criticized the bill for misrepresenting issues of harassment, suggesting that such incidents should be dealt with legally without targeting transgender individuals. Seig also discussed the fluidity of biological sex and his personal experiences, urging the committee to stop discrimination.
HB148: Betsy Harrington, Derry, New Hampshire Support00:24:15.799 - 8:24:51 AM; Betsy Harrington from Derry, New Hampshire, supports HB148, citing a personal experience where her son's soccer team played against a team with a transgender player, which she believed was against state law. She expressed concerns about the impact on children, mentioning a game that resulted in a blowout and the involvement of media. Harrington also noted that the transgender player's father was a sex offender, suggesting that allowing such participation leads to law-breaking and dangerous situations. She believes separating teams by biological sex would simplify matters and prevent similar incidents.
HB148: Rosie Emer, Hooksett, New Hampshire Oppose00:26:35.760 - 8:27:11 AM; Rosie Emer from Hooksett, New Hampshire, opposes HB148 as the parent of a non-binary child. She described the difficulties her child faces with bathroom and changing room decisions due to harassment and anxiety. Emer argued that the bill would exacerbate these issues rather than solve them, citing a study from the American Association of Pediatrics that links bathroom restrictions with increased sexual assault risks for transgender and non-binary individuals. She also intended to read testimony written by her 8-year-old child.
HB148: Emily, Hooksett, New Hampshire Oppose00:27:46.399 - 8:28:22 AM; Emily, an 8-year-old trans kid from Hooksett, testified against the bathroom ban bill, HB148. They shared their personal experience of feeling safer and more themselves after transitioning but expressed fear and anxiety caused by the proposed bill. Emily emphasized the importance of using the bathroom that aligns with their gender identity, highlighting the discomfort and fear of being questioned about their bathroom use. They urged the committee to support trans kids by stopping the bill.
HB148: Steven Scare, Nashua, New Hampshire Support00:28:31.440 - 8:29:07 AM; Steven Scare from Nashua expressed support for HB148 but raised concerns about the bill's lack of a clear definition of sex. He argued that sex is determined at conception and observed at birth, criticizing the medical community for what he perceives as ideological corruption. He emphasized the importance of recognizing sex based on reproductive biology and genetics at birth and opposed the concept of gender identity, calling it imaginary and based on emotions and stereotypes.
HB148: Wendy Stallings, Exeter, New Hampshire Oppose00:31:16.720 - 8:31:52 AM; Wendy Stallings from Exeter opposed HB148 from multiple perspectives: as a mother, educator, scientist, human, and Christian. She highlighted the discriminatory nature of the bill by comparing it to a hypothetical bill that would discriminate against Christians. She argued that enforcing the bill would necessitate invasive checks, which she described as sexual molestation. Stallings stressed the importance of respecting individuals' gender identities and criticized the bill's premise as scientifically disproven.
HB148: Beth Scare, Nashua, New Hampshire Support00:33:31.399 - 8:34:07 AM; Beth Scare from Nashua supported HB148, arguing that the bill is necessary to protect the privacy and safety of women and girls. She criticized the 2018 non-discrimination law, HB1319, as a mistake that compromised safety. Scare cited statistics on rape and sexual assault, and referenced a Swedish study on criminality among individuals who have undergone sex reassignment. She expressed concerns about trans women with sexual fetishes having access to women's spaces and mentioned her previous opposition to HB1319, which was featured in a documentary.
HB148: Devon Church, Hooksett, New Hampshire Oppose00:36:04.040 - 8:36:40 AM; Devon Church from Hooksett opposed HB148, emphasizing the potential harm the bill could cause to women and girls. As a transgender man and a father, he highlighted the risks of the bill, including the possibility of men claiming to be transgender to access women's spaces. Church questioned the practicality and invasiveness of enforcing the bill, arguing that it would lead to harassment and contradict the state's commitment to equality and respect. He urged the committee to reject the bill for the sake of safety, dignity, and freedom.
HB148: Nancy Brennan, Weare, New Hampshire Oppose00:38:32.000 - 8:39:08 AM; Nancy Brennan from Weare opposed HB148, arguing that it promotes discrimination against transgender individuals. She criticized the bill for giving permission to discriminate and potentially incite violence against transgender people, referencing a recent violent incident involving a transgender man. Brennan urged the committee to research transgender and intersex issues and to prioritize kindness and understanding in their decision-making process.
HB148: Sarah Terell, New Hampshire Oppose00:40:55.680 - 8:41:31 AM; Sarah Terell, a lifelong resident of New Hampshire, expressed her horror at HB 148, which she believes seeks to remove anti-discrimination protections from transgender individuals. She highlighted the progress made in 2018 when the state passed strong anti-discrimination laws. Terell shared her personal story about her transgender daughter, emphasizing that the bill would force her daughter into unsafe situations in restrooms and locker rooms. She argued that HB 148 does not enhance privacy or safety but rather endangers transgender individuals by forcing them into spaces where they do not belong. Terell urged the committee to vote itl on HB 148 to protect her child and maintain the dignity and safety of transgender people.
HB148: Aubrey Friedman, Bridgewater Support00:43:13.240 - 8:43:49 AM; Aubrey Friedman from Bridgewater spoke in support of HB 148, focusing on safety concerns in prisons and detention facilities. He argued that if the state incarcerates women, it is responsible for their safety, and housing biological males with them could lead to abuse. Friedman also discussed changing rooms, noting that while shared facilities may be common in Europe, in America, privacy concerns should be respected, particularly for women who feel their space is invaded when shared with men. He concluded that safety and privacy in detention facilities and changing rooms are key reasons for supporting the bill.
HB148: Michaela Fishler, Manchester Oppose00:44:51.319 - 8:45:27 AM; Michaela Fishler from Manchester expressed strong opposition to HB 148, arguing that the bill allows discrimination against transgender individuals in public and private institutions. She pointed out the absurdity and danger of requiring transgender individuals to use facilities corresponding to their sex assigned at birth, which could lead to uncomfortable and unsafe situations. Fishler criticized the bill's impact on correctional facilities and mental health institutions, stating that it would put transgender individuals at significant risk. She emphasized the humanity of transgender people and urged the committee to reject the bill.
HB148: Lauren Irwin, Concord Oppose00:46:40.960 - 8:47:16 AM; Lauren Irwin, an employment attorney from Concord and parent of a transgender child, strongly opposed HB 148. She highlighted that the bill removes existing legal protections for transgender individuals, protections that were established in 2018 with bipartisan support. Irwin referenced the House Judiciary Committee's report from that time, which detailed the intent to prohibit discrimination based on gender identity. She noted the support from various groups, including law enforcement and the business community, and stressed the high suicide rates among transgender individuals. Irwin urged the committee to oppose the bill, emphasizing the value of transgender members of the community.
HB148: Lind Jaos Oppose00:49:48.040 - 8:50:24 AM; Lind Jaos expressed strong opposition to HB 148, describing it as a mean-spirited bill that allows discrimination against transgender individuals in restrooms. Jaos recounted their involvement in updating New Hampshire's non-discrimination laws in 2017 and 2018 to include protections for transgender people, which passed with bipartisan support. They criticized the bill for perpetuating the false 'bathroom predator' myth and highlighted the lack of evidence supporting increased safety incidents post-law change. Jaos argued that the bill indirectly affects employment by allowing restroom discrimination, potentially making it difficult for transgender individuals to find safe employment. They urged the committee to reject the bill and address unfounded fears.
HB148: Brennus Information Only00:53:23.200 - 8:53:59 AM; Brennus's testimony was cut off in the transcript provided, and no detailed summary can be generated based on the available information.
HB148: Bren Ninos Oppose00:53:27.119 - 8:54:03 AM; Bren Ninos, a mother of three, argued against HB148 by emphasizing the importance of treating all persons with dignity and respect. She specifically addressed her comfort and safety, as well as that of her children, in sharing facilities and participating in sports with transgender individuals. She highlighted the potential harm to transgender people caused by exclusionary policies, citing the increased risk of risk-taking behaviors among trans youth as per the Family Acceptance Project.
HB148: Cameron Muns, Manchester Oppose00:55:25.079 - 8:56:01 AM; Cameron Muns, a long-time resident of Manchester and a transgender citizen, strongly opposed HB148, calling it an attack on transgender rights and a mockery of the freedoms claimed by New Hampshire. Muns argued that the bill's parameters set after claiming to be against discrimination are, in fact, discriminatory. They expressed concern over the state's potential role in scrutinizing citizens' physical attributes and urged the committee to vote against the bill.
HB148: David Maxon Jr, Hooksett Oppose00:57:52.720 - 8:58:28 AM; David Maxon Jr from Hooksett spoke on behalf of transgender individuals in New Hampshire, arguing that HB148 contradicts the state's values of freedom. He questioned the practicality and constitutionality of enforcing restroom classifications based on biological sex and highlighted the mental health implications of such policies, noting the high suicide rates among transgender students. He emphasized that the bill could incite violence and dismantle protections against discrimination.
HB148: Karen Odeno Oppose01:00:14.280 - 9:00:50 AM; Karen Odeno, a mother of a transgender son, opposed HB148, expressing frustration with attempts to legislate against her son's existence. She argued that the bill infringes on the constitutional rights to equal protection and unalienable freedoms. As a former teacher and small business owner, she emphasized the importance of kindness and compassion, criticizing the bill for fueling culture wars and promoting bullying against the transgender community.
HB148: Vivian Murphy, Rochester Oppose01:03:17.119 - 9:03:53 AM; Vivian Murphy from Rochester, speaking as a transgender woman, opposed HB148, arguing that it punishes and targets a small percentage of the population. She criticized the bill's focus on trans women and its punitive nature, highlighting the complexity of biological sex classifications. Murphy emphasized the constitutional promise of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which she feels is denied to transgender individuals through such legislation.
HB148: Courtney Reid, ACLU of New Hampshire Oppose01:05:44.880 - 9:06:20 AM; Courtney Reid, a policy advocate with the ACLU of New Hampshire, opposed HB148, arguing that it allows discrimination and makes transgender people unsafe in public life. She criticized the bill's lack of clear enforcement mechanisms and its potential to undo bipartisan work aimed at making the state more inclusive. Reid highlighted data showing that inclusive policies reduce rates of violence against transgender individuals, questioning the bill's purpose and its conflict with federal anti-discrimination laws.
HB148: Courtney Reid, ACLU of New Hampshire Oppose01:05:44.880 - 9:06:20 AM; Courtney Reid, representing the ACLU of New Hampshire, expressed opposition to HB148. She stated that the bill would permit discrimination against transgender individuals in various aspects of life, which would violate Title VII and Title IX, as well as the Prison Rape Elimination Act. Reid highlighted constitutional concerns regarding the 14th Amendment's equal protection rights and the 8th Amendment's rights against cruel and unusual punishment in correctional settings. She mentioned that inclusive policies challenged in court have often been upheld as not violating Title VII and Title IX.
HB148: Representative McFarland Information Only01:07:48.559 - 9:08:24 AM; Representative McFarland asked Courtney Reid to clarify any points of disagreement with the bill's sponsor's testimony. Reid responded that she did not recall a specific point of disagreement but reiterated the ACLU's position that the bill could enable discrimination against transgender people, potentially violating federal laws and constitutional rights.
HB148: Representative Horgan Information Only01:09:21.279 - 9:09:57 AM; Representative Horgan questioned Courtney Reid about the transgender offender manual used by the Bureau of Prisons, inquiring if it was still in use following recent executive orders and court challenges. Reid explained that the New Hampshire Department of Corrections follows these federal guidelines for a case-by-case assessment of transgender inmates' housing, and mentioned that a recent executive order on transgender inmate housing had been challenged and temporarily restrained.
HB148: Representative Tur Information Only01:10:52.920 - 9:11:28 AM; Representative Tur asked Courtney Reid about the bill's definition of biological sex and its application in various settings. Reid confirmed that she was not aware of any other state law that allows such broad interpretation and application of biological sex for segregation, except for the current sports ban being challenged in court.
HB148: Representative Perez Information Only01:12:23.679 - 9:12:59 AM; Representative Perez inquired if Courtney Reid had stated that people do not have a right to privacy in public restrooms. Reid clarified that supporters of the bill claim privacy in non-private shared facilities, referencing a Third Circuit ruling that upheld an inclusive policy on privacy grounds.
HB148: M. Jac, Junior at Kearsarge Regional High School Oppose01:13:51.920 - 9:14:27 AM; M. Jac, a 17-year-old transgender girl from New London and a junior at Kearsarge Regional High School, testified in opposition to HB148. She shared her experiences of feeling threatened and discriminated against at school due to the proposed legislation. Jac emphasized the harm of being forced to use male restrooms and locker rooms, which could lead to bullying and psychological harm. She urged the committee to protect transgender citizens and vote against the bill.
HB148: Kelly Warner, High School Teacher from Exeter Oppose01:15:55.440 - 9:16:31 AM; Kelly Warner, a high school teacher from Exeter who teaches in Maine, spoke on behalf of New Hampshire students and teachers unable to attend the hearing. She read the testimony of Hana Cass, a high school student from Exeter High School, who opposed HB148. Hana highlighted the absurdity of worrying about restroom and changing facilities and criticized the bill for opening the door to more anti-trans legislation. She emphasized that transgender people have always used restrooms without incident.
HB148: Elanor MCD, Resident of Exeter Oppose01:18:28.320 - 9:19:04 AM; Elanor MCD from Exeter opposed HB148, describing it as a blow to personal freedom and an example of government overreach. She criticized the bill for promoting discrimination against transgender and gender non-conforming individuals, potentially requiring invasive tests to determine biological sex. MCD pointed out the lack of a clear definition of biological sex in the bill and its negative impact on transgender children's mental health, urging the committee to vote against it.
HB148: Crystal Bloom, Resident of Francestown Oppose01:20:48.760 - 9:21:24 AM; Crystal Bloom, a resident of Francestown with a Master of Social Work degree from the University of New Hampshire, opposed HB148. She highlighted the issue of sexual violence in prisons and argued that the bill would exacerbate this problem. Bloom criticized the bill for promoting sex discrimination instead of addressing broader societal issues of abuse. She urged the committee to consider the bill's enforcement implications and vote against it.
HB148: Nancy Burman, Resident of New Boston Support01:22:22.480 - 9:22:58 AM; Nancy Burman from New Boston supported HB148, citing an example of a girl using the boys' restroom in her district, which she argued violated the privacy of the boys. She referenced Title IX, which allows for sex-separated restroom and locker room facilities, and mentioned court rulings that support biological sex separation. Burman expressed concern about the power differential and potential for sexual harassment in shared facilities, urging the committee to consider these issues.
HB148: Ty Thompson, Resident of Nottingham Oppose01:24:44.119 - 9:25:20 AM; Ty Thompson, a transmasculine non-binary person from Nottingham, opposed HB148. They discussed the concept of perception and how it affects transgender individuals' experiences in public spaces. Thompson shared personal experiences of being misgendered and threatened in women's restrooms and criticized the bill for promoting discrimination based on perception. They highlighted the fear-mongering aspect of the legislation and its potential to create more problems for vulnerable communities.
HB148: Leo Frank, Resident of Portsmouth Oppose01:28:30.320 - 9:29:06 AM; Leo Frank, a transgender man and resident of Portsmouth who works at a high school, testified against HB148. He shared his personal experience of transitioning in New Hampshire and argued that transgender people, especially youth, are not a threat in public spaces like bathrooms, locker rooms, or sports. He highlighted that transgender individuals, particularly women and girls, face higher risks of violence and sexual violence in these spaces. Frank emphasized that existing New Hampshire laws protect transgender individuals and saw no reason to roll back these protections. He discussed the effectiveness of regulations used by various athletic associations to ensure fairness and safety in sports without excluding transgender people. He expressed concern over the health outcomes for transgender youth if they are denied opportunities in sports and urged the committee to oppose HB148 and similar anti-trans legislation, arguing that such legislation distracts from real issues facing New Hampshire residents.
HB148: Em Brock, Resident of New Hampshire Oppose01:30:49.880 - 9:31:25 AM; Em Brock, a mother of two, including a transgender child, spoke against HB148. She expressed her disappointment and frustration at the legislation, feeling that it unfairly targets her family and wrongly labels her transgender child as a predator. Brock clarified that being transgender does not equate to being a predator or a threat to others, and stressed that existing laws can handle inappropriate behavior in public spaces without discriminating against transgender individuals. She criticized the lack of evidence supporting the concerns about transgender individuals in bathrooms and locker rooms and urged the committee to vote against the bill, emphasizing the real-life impact of such legislation on her family and others like them.
HB148: Arora Weatherby, Resident of Derry Oppose01:34:15.840 - 9:34:51 AM; Arora Weatherby, a resident of Derry and a transgender woman, opposed HB148. She raised practical concerns about how the bill would be enforced, questioning whether it would involve checking genitals or require chromosome tests, and how it would handle chromosomal variations. Weatherby also highlighted the dangerous implications of the bill for transgender women in correctional facilities, suggesting that it could lead to high rates of prison rape. She expressed her disappointment with the state legislature for repeatedly proposing such bills and pleaded with the committee to preserve New Hampshire's commitment to individual freedom by rejecting the bill.
HB148: Cedar Pleasant, Resident of Manchester Oppose01:36:52.920 - 9:37:28 AM; Cedar Pleasant, a resident of Manchester, testified against HB148, arguing that the bill does not enhance safety and criticized its focus on transgender individuals. Pleasant pointed out that the real concern of the bill's sponsors seemed to be men entering women's restrooms, not transgender women themselves. They questioned how the bill would be enforced and noted that it could subject cisgender individuals to similar scrutiny as transgender individuals. Pleasant also addressed concerns about transgender participation in sports, suggesting that transgender athletes have always been present and that existing safety measures should be the focus, not exclusionary legislation.
HB148: Elizabeth Richards, Resident of Pembroke Oppose01:39:11.239 - 9:39:47 AM; Elizabeth Richards, a resident of Pembroke, spoke in opposition to HB148 despite not having a personal connection to transgender issues. She emphasized the importance of listening to the transgender community, which is at greater risk for violence, and acting in their best interest. Richards argued that transgender people are an integral part of the community and deserve to feel safe and welcome. She expressed confusion and frustration over the need to revisit established laws that protect all individuals and urged the committee to vote against the bill, highlighting the strong public turnout and passionate testimonies against it.
HB148: Sam Hawkins, NAMI New Hampshire Oppose01:41:14.679 - 9:41:50 AM; Sam Hawkins, representing NAMI New Hampshire, opposed HB148, expressing concerns about the bill's potential to increase stigma and enable discrimination against individuals with mental health issues. He highlighted that the legislation could negatively affect transgender and non-binary community members, their families, and broader communities across New Hampshire, urging the committee to vote it as inexpedient to legislate.
HB148: Jonathan Hopkins, Pastor of Concordia Lutheran Church, Concord Oppose01:42:00.599 - 9:42:36 AM; Pastor Jonathan Hopkins from Concordia Lutheran Church in Concord opposed HB148, citing personal experiences as a father of a transgender child and as a citizen of New Hampshire. He referenced religious texts to argue against discrimination, emphasizing love and care for all citizens. He also discussed the positive impact of his child's transition on their mental health and well-being, urging the committee to reject the bill.
HB148: Will Oliver, Concerned New Hampshire Resident, White Mountain Region Oppose01:46:40.840 - 9:47:16 AM; Will Oliver, identifying as non-binary and living in the White Mountain region, opposed HB148, expressing horror at the idea of forcing transgender individuals to use facilities inconsistent with their gender identity. They criticized the bill's sponsors for lacking understanding and highlighted existing laws that already address safety and privacy concerns. Oliver also submitted evidence challenging a study cited by the bill's proponents, refuting claims about transgender criminality patterns.
HB148: Zoe Hill, Resident of Lebanon Oppose01:49:20.480 - 9:49:56 AM; Zoe Hill from Lebanon opposed HB148, arguing that it targets a small group of people and could cause significant harm, contradicting the state's motto of 'Live Free or Die'. She urged the committee to vote the bill as inexpedient to legislate.
HB148: Boyd Hegerty, Resident of Rye, District 24 Oppose01:50:07.360 - 9:50:43 AM; Boyd Hegerty, a resident of Rye and father of a transgender woman, opposed HB148, sharing his daughter's fears about bathroom usage and potential legal repercussions. He described the bill as terrorizing transgender and intersex individuals, emphasizing the small percentage of the population it affects and the significant impact it could have.
HB148: Amelia Thompson, Resident of Newmarket, Rockingham County Oppose01:52:12.280 - 9:52:48 AM; Amelia Thompson from Newmarket opposed HB148, arguing as a cisgender woman that the bill does not enhance safety in public restrooms. She expressed concerns about increased surveillance and the potential harm to transgender family members and friends, urging opposition to the bill due to its broad negative impact and lack of benefit.
HB148: Billy Strong, Manchester Oppose01:54:02.239 - 9:54:38 AM; Billy Strong, a transgender woman and mechanical and robotics engineer from Manchester, testified against HB148. She argued that the bill creates a carve-out from state discrimination protections specifically to oppress gender non-conforming individuals like herself. She criticized the bill's use of the undefined term 'biological sex' and suggested it would permit discrimination based on physiological characteristics, leading to public confrontations and threats to privacy and safety for not only transgender people but all gender non-conforming individuals. She believes the bill de-prioritizes the safety of transgender people and urged the committee to oppose its adoption.
HB148: Laura Brigata, Hudson Oppose01:56:22.639 - 9:56:58 AM; Laura Brigata from Hudson expressed her opposition to HB148, citing fears for women's safety in bathrooms since the passage of the non-discrimination bill in 2018. She shared her concerns about biological men using women's facilities and the potential for sexual misconduct or assault, arguing that such scenarios could prevent women from feeling safe or speaking up. She highlighted her personal experiences and fears as a woman and a mother, emphasizing the impact on women's confidence to protect themselves and others in public spaces.
HB148: Colleen Gadwa Oppose01:58:40.440 - 9:59:16 AM; Colleen Gadwa, through read testimony, opposed HB148 for its discriminatory impact on transgender and gender non-conforming individuals. She argued that the bill's classification based on biological sex for various facilities undermines dignity, safety, and rights, perpetuating exclusion and inequality. She emphasized that there is no evidence that inclusive policies threaten public safety or fairness in sports, and urged lawmakers to reject the bill in favor of policies promoting equality and justice for all.
HB148: Avery Roy, Manchester Oppose02:00:29.679 - 10:01:05 AM; Avery Roy, a transgender woman from Manchester, strongly opposed HB148. She highlighted the legal ambiguity of the term 'biological sex' in the bill and RSA 34 5A, suggesting it leaves room for misuse. She expressed concern that the bill could open legal pathways for discrimination based on other factors. Roy shared personal experiences of harassment and violence, arguing that the bill emboldens such behavior and prevents legal recourse. She urged the committee to reject the bill due to its discriminatory intent and flawed text.
HB148: Christine Hughes, Durham Oppose02:02:28.760 - 10:03:04 AM; Christine Hughes from Durham opposed HB148, sharing her experiences raising a transgender daughter. She recounted instances where her daughter faced harassment in public and school bathrooms, questioning whose privacy was being protected. Hughes highlighted her daughter's participation in sports and the impact of derogatory comments from sidelines, arguing that the bill discriminates against law-abiding transgender individuals. She urged the committee to vote no on HB148, emphasizing the constant fear transgender people face due to misunderstanding and discrimination.
HB148: Julian Lee, Hampton Falls Oppose02:04:58.280 - 10:05:34 AM; Julian Lee, a transgender resident of Hampton Falls, opposed HB148, emphasizing the positive impact of previous legislation like HB 1319, which added gender identity to state law. She argued that the current bill questions the trust and safety of transgender people in public spaces, despite eight years of data proving otherwise. Lee urged the committee to reject the discriminatory legislation, stressing the importance of affirming transgender existence and rights.
HB148: Sarah Smith, Pembroke Oppose02:07:32.920 - 10:08:08 AM; Sarah Smith from Pembroke opposed HB148, arguing that the bill is inherently discriminatory. She pointed out that women's facilities already have privacy features, and single-stall bathrooms are often non-gendered, suggesting that the bill's concerns are unfounded. Smith also highlighted the broader impact of the bill on the friends and families of transgender individuals, suggesting it could affect businesses and tourism. She urged the committee to reject the bill, emphasizing its negative impact on the entire community.
HB148: Naomi Lmore, Dover Oppose02:09:58.760 - 10:10:34 AM; Naomi Lmore, a resident of Dover, spoke in opposition to House Bill 148. She argued that classifying individuals based on biological sex for facility entry would increase the risk of sexual violence and discrimination against transgender individuals, which is against RSA 354-A. She highlighted that hormone replacement therapy changes physical appearance in ways that align with female biology, posing dangers for trans women in male facilities. Lmore also mentioned FBI statistics from 2023, indicating over 2,800 hate crimes against the LGBTQ+ community, with a significant portion motivated by gender identity. She challenged the notion that trans people are predators and criticized the bill's attempt to piggyback on an executive order for quick litigation, calling it hypocritical and contradictory to anti-discrimination laws.
HB148: Sarah King, Derry Oppose02:12:24.320 - 10:13:00 AM; Sarah King from Derry, a history student at Brandeis University, opposed HB 148 by drawing historical parallels to the Nazi regime's actions against the first LGBTQIA+ affirming sexual Research Institute in Germany. She argued that the bill aims to scare and divide people, pushing transgender individuals out of public life, similar to historical scapegoating. King emphasized the Nazi ideology's impact on various groups, including transgender people, and referenced Martin Niemöller's poem to warn about the consequences of passivity and discrimination.
HB148: Scott Files, Dover Oppose02:14:44.400 - 10:15:20 AM; Scott Files, a transgender man from Dover, opposed HB 148, stating that the bill would force him to use women's restrooms, causing confusion and discomfort. He noted that his presence in men's rooms has never been an issue and argued that the bill would enable discrimination against transgender, non-binary, and intersex individuals. Files urged the committee to vote against the bill to prevent the passage of more extreme policies that could endanger constituents' health and well-being.
HB148: David Trumble, Wear Oppose02:17:03.879 - 10:17:39 AM; David Trumble from Wear opposed HB 148, arguing that the bill sets up a legal framework for discrimination rather than protecting civil rights. He emphasized that transgender individuals have contributed positively to society and that passing the bill would create two classes of citizens with different civil rights. Trumble highlighted the potential impacts on transgender individuals' rights in various settings, including public hearings, prisons, and sports, and stressed the existence of less restrictive alternatives to address these issues.
HB148: Drew Carson, Dover Oppose02:19:19.160 - 10:19:55 AM; Drew Carson, a transgender man from Dover, strongly opposed HB148. He shared his personal experience of knowing his transgender identity from a young age and argued that gender identity is a brain-based trait, not visible externally. Carson criticized the bill for encouraging people to make judgments about others' gender and genitals based on appearance, which he finds invasive and inappropriate. He highlighted the vulnerability of transgender individuals in public spaces like bathrooms and locker rooms, stating they are more likely to be victims of violence.
HB148: Lyn Lipet, Milford Oppose02:21:39.200 - 10:22:15 AM; Lyn Lipet from Milford opposed HB148, expressing concerns about the bill's potential to harm transgender and non-binary individuals. Lipet argued that the bill removes freedoms and inflicts harm on a group long protected by New Hampshire's anti-discrimination laws. She suggested that fears of potential harm should not justify denying freedoms and emphasized that privacy can be maintained with single-stall facilities. Lipet criticized the bill for encouraging privacy violations and potentially leading to harassment of both cisgender and transgender people.
HB148: Leah Peters, Derry Oppose02:24:13.160 - 10:24:49 AM; Leah Peters from Derry opposed HB148, pointing out the historical presence of transgender people across cultures and socioeconomic classes. She provided examples from Native American, Mexican, Samoan, and Indian cultures, as well as historical figures like Roman Emperor Elagabalus. Peters mentioned the first gender-affirming clinic opened by Dr. Magnus Hirschfeld in Berlin and its destruction by the Nazis. She highlighted the historical persecution of transgender and other LGBT individuals, urging lawmakers to consider this history when voting on the bill.
HB148: Tia Violet Pulis, Concord Oppose02:26:51.720 - 10:27:27 AM; Tia Violet Pulis from Concord opposed HB148, drawing parallels between past treatment of homosexuals and current treatment of transgender people. She shared personal experiences of assault in male locker rooms and bathrooms, emphasizing the dangers transgender individuals face in these spaces. Pulis urged lawmakers to consider the safety and empathy needed for transgender and queer individuals, arguing that the bill would increase their vulnerability to discrimination and violence.
HB148: Carol Pickford, Allenstown Oppose02:28:41.880 - 10:29:17 AM; Carol Pickford from Allenstown opposed HB148, stating that the proposed law threatens her dignity, safety, and rights as a transgender woman. She described the irreversible changes and challenges she faced in transitioning and the respect she has worked to gain. Pickford criticized the bill for implying transgender people are predators, which she finds offensive and false. She also discussed transgender prison reform and the violence transgender women face in male prisons, urging the committee to oppose the bill.
HB148: Katie Remish, Hollis Oppose02:31:04.359 - 10:31:40 AM; Katie Remish from Hollis opposed HB148, focusing on the emotional impact on children, both cisgender and transgender. She shared a story about a boy uncomfortable with a transgender student in the bathroom, empathizing with his feelings but emphasizing that transgender children face similar discomfort daily. Remish argued for open conversations and education about gender identity as a solution, rather than bans or ostracization, which she believes would solve the problem more effectively.
HB148: Jennifer Smith, Pembroke Oppose02:33:23.960 - 10:33:59 AM; Jennifer Smith from Pembroke opposed HB148, reinforcing points made by previous speakers and submitting additional written testimony. As a Christian and a medical doctor, she shared her personal experiences with gender identity issues from a young age and her journey to transition. Smith discussed her interpretation of scripture supporting the existence of more than one gender and her happiness post-transition. She offered to answer questions on the medical aspects related to the bill.
HB148: Asha Roberts, Wilmot Oppose02:35:47.840 - 10:36:23 AM; Asha Roberts from Wilmot opposed HB148, addressing the moral panic around transgender people and the bill's flawed concept of biological sex. As an intersex individual, she explained the complexity of human biology and the variations of sex characteristics. Roberts shared her personal experience of undergoing surgeries to conform to a binary sex model and criticized the bill for being based on easily disproven medical facts. She urged the committee to vote the bill as inexpedient to legislate.
HB148: BJ Wall, Sullivan Oppose02:38:23.120 - 10:38:59 AM; BJ Wall from Sullivan opposed HB148, expressing concerns for her transgender grandsons. She discussed the potential dangers her grandson at UNH could face if forced to use the women's bathroom under the bill and criticized the bill's impact on sports fairness. Wall argued that transgender women on HRT are more physically similar to cisgender women and that placing transgender women in men's prisons is dangerous. She urged the committee to vote against the bill.
HB148: Kaden, UNH grad student Oppose02:40:23.000 - 10:40:59 AM; Kaden, a transgender man and UNH graduate student, shared personal experiences and concerns about the safety and comfort of bathrooms under the proposed bill. He highlighted the challenges transgender individuals face, including the potential for increased scrutiny and danger for all women in bathrooms due to the bill. Kaden argued that the bill would force transgender individuals into inappropriate restrooms, causing discomfort and potential harm. He suggested that the focus should be on improving bathroom design rather than discriminating against transgender people.
HB148: Eileen Sahagian, Durham Oppose02:42:26.800 - 10:43:02 AM; Eileen Sahagian, a retired teacher from Durham, spoke passionately against HB148, drawing from her experience with transgender students. She emphasized the long and difficult journey of transgender individuals and the potential harm the bill could cause by increasing anxiety and fear in public spaces like bathrooms. Sahagian argued that the legislation could lead to vigilante actions and put vulnerable people at risk, calling it cruel and contrary to the values of the 'Live Free or Die' state.
HB148: Sarah Chapman, Nottingham Oppose02:44:52.760 - 10:45:28 AM; Sarah Chapman, a resident of Nottingham and parent of a transgender child, spoke against HB148. They shared personal stories about their family's journey with gender identity, emphasizing the positive impact of their son's transition and the broader implications of gender as a construct. Chapman argued that the bill would cause harm to the transgender community and undermine values of equality and justice, urging the committee to consider the broader impact of such legislation.
HB148: Valen Warner, Vermont resident working in New Hampshire Oppose02:47:15.399 - 10:47:51 AM; Valen Warner, a Vermont resident who works and receives medical care in New Hampshire, spoke in opposition to HB148. With experience in advocating for gender-inclusive restrooms, Warner criticized the bill for potentially reverting to outdated practices that would expose transgender individuals to harassment. They also expressed concerns about other aspects of the bill targeting transgender people in prisons and psychiatric facilities, calling the entire legislation cruel and aimed at harassing transgender people.
HB148: Stacy Esposito, Brookline Oppose02:49:36.239 - 10:50:12 AM; Stacy Esposito, a mental health professional from Brookline, opposed HB148 based on scientific and clinical perspectives. She debunked the false premise that transgender people do not exist and highlighted the harm the bill could cause. Esposito shared experiences from her practice, noting the resilience and struggles of transgender clients and the potential increase in bullying and violence if the bill passes. She called for evidence-based discussions rather than legislation that erases and endangers a marginalized population.
HB148: Jonah Sutton Oppose02:51:52.680 - 10:52:28 AM; Jonah Sutton began to testify against HB148, but the transcript ends before providing further details on their testimony.
HB148: Morse, Canterbury, New Hampshire Oppose02:51:57.359 - 10:52:33 AM; Morse testified against HB148, emphasizing the importance of public restroom access for transgender individuals and families. He highlighted that the bill would allow discrimination against transgender people in public spaces, including restrooms and community events like 5k runs and obstacle courses. He argued that such legislation would promote bigotry and state-sponsored discrimination, urging the committee to vote it inexpedient to legislate.
HB148: AJ, New Hampshire Oppose02:53:31.600 - 10:54:07 AM; AJ, a 19-year-old resident of New Hampshire, opposed HB148, criticizing its ambiguous wording and the potential for increased government control over citizens' lives under the guise of public safety. He expressed his personal feelings about the fear and anxiety experienced by the queer community, highlighting his own relative privilege but also the broader impact of the bill on creating a hostile environment. He urged opposition to the bill to prevent New Hampshire from becoming a scary place.
HB148: Mara Weston, New Hampshire Medical Society Oppose02:56:36.640 - 10:57:12 AM; Mara Weston, representing the New Hampshire Medical Society, opposed HB148, arguing that it discriminates against transgender individuals and denies them access to healthcare, which is detrimental to their health and well-being. She cited statistics from the 2015 US Transgender Survey to emphasize the high suicide attempt rates among transgender people and urged the committee to vote the bill inexpedient to legislate, as it contradicts the society's mission to promote public health and well-being.
HB148: Stephanie Colie, Conway, New Hampshire Oppose02:58:43.279 - 10:59:19 AM; Stephanie Colie, from Conway, New Hampshire, opposed HB148, sharing her long involvement in the trans rights movement and the real-life experiences post the 2018 anti-discrimination law, which contradicted the hypothetical fears about restroom safety. She highlighted the practical issues transgender individuals face with restroom usage and the potential for discriminatory enforcement of the bill, urging the committee to vote it inexpedient to legislate.
HB148: Deborah House, American Federation of Teachers New Hampshire Oppose03:01:11.120 - 11:01:47 AM; Deborah House, President of the American Federation of Teachers New Hampshire, opposed HB148, focusing on its impact on public schools. She argued that the bill would force schools to discriminate against students, particularly affecting their ability to participate in sports and use restrooms. She raised concerns about the enforcement of the bill in schools, questioning the practicality and privacy implications of requiring students to carry birth certificates or be subjected to gender profiling.
HB148: Grace Murray, Amherst, New Hampshire Oppose03:06:01.399 - 11:06:37 AM; Grace Murray, from Amherst, New Hampshire, and a political director for the New Hampshire Youth Movement, opposed HB148, focusing on the issue of bathroom access. She argued that the bill would lead to invasive questioning and dangerous assumptions, using her personal experience with PCOS to illustrate how women with certain medical conditions could be unfairly scrutinized. She urged the committee to oppose the bill to protect privacy and safety.
HB148: Caitlyn Kellerer Oppose03:08:21.960 - 11:08:57 AM; Caitlyn Kellerer opposed HB148, sharing personal experiences of violence related to bathroom use to counter the bill's alleged protection against such violence. They recounted incidents of harassment and assault, arguing that the bill could justify violence against transgender and gender non-conforming individuals. Caitlyn urged the committee to vote the bill inexpedient to legislate to prevent further discrimination and violence.
HB148: Ian Huitt, Cornerstone Support03:10:42.160 - 11:11:18 AM; Ian Huitt, representing Cornerstone, supported HB148, arguing that the bill acknowledges the existence of biological sex and the state's right to differentiate based on it, a practice he claimed is common historically and legally. He criticized the opposition's arguments as misrepresenting the bill's intent, which he stated is not to make being transgender illegal but to recognize biological differences. He offered to answer legal questions about the bill's compatibility with existing laws.
HB148: Cara Cabal, Madbury Oppose03:12:46.720 - 11:13:22 AM; Cara Cabal, a 36-year resident of New Hampshire and Madbury, strongly opposed HB 148, arguing that it would cause significant harm to transgender and gender non-conforming individuals, particularly youth. She highlighted her experience working with LGBTQ+ youth and the detrimental impact of policies like HB 148 on their mental health and confidence. Cabal criticized the bill for creating new avenues for harm without addressing real issues, and for promoting a false narrative of danger. She emphasized the lack of evidence supporting the bill's safety and fairness claims and warned of increased confusion, discrimination, and violence due to the bill's ambiguous enforcement.
HB148: McKenzie West, Pembroke Oppose03:14:43.439 - 11:15:19 AM; McKenzie West, a transgender woman and recent resident of Pembroke, opposed HB 148. She shared her decision to move to New Hampshire was influenced by the state's protections for transgender individuals, which she researched thoroughly. West expressed concerns about her future in the state due to the chilling effects of HB 148 and similar bills, questioning the safety and welcome environment for transgender people. She urged the committee to vote 'inexpedient to legislate' on HB 148, highlighting her uncertainty about recommending New Hampshire as a safe state for other queer individuals.
HB641: Linda Harth Gathright, Hillsborough 10, Nashua Support04:04:59.960 - 12:05:35 PM; Representative Linda Harth Gathright introduced HB 641, which seeks to establish a private right of action for civil rights violations. She explained that the bill would allow individuals to have legal representation for alleged civil rights violations, supplementing the existing process through the Attorney General's office. Gathright encouraged the committee to direct questions to subsequent speakers and kept her introduction brief.
HB641: Wheer Support04:07:11.920 - 12:07:47 PM; Wheer expressed support for HB641, highlighting the significant rise in civil rights cases, with a 465% increase reported by the Attorney General's office. They emphasized the importance of a private right of action to address these cases, describing it as a simple, common, and nonpartisan approach. Wheer deferred to experts for more detailed testimony on the bill's specifics but affirmed their support for its passage.
HB641: Sean Lock, Senior Assistant Attorney General, New Hampshire Department of Justice Information Only04:08:48.760 - 12:09:24 PM; Sean Lock, representing the New Hampshire Department of Justice, did not take a position on the underlying bill but supported the amendment requested by their office. He provided background on the Civil Rights Act of 1999, which prohibits interference with rights through force or violence motivated by protected characteristics. The Act allows the Attorney General to seek civil penalties and injunctions. Lock discussed the creation of the Civil Rights Unit in 2017 and its activities, including training law enforcement to identify hate crimes. In 2024, they received 215 complaints, with about a quarter to a third being potential Civil Rights Act violations. Regarding HB641, Lock was glad about the notice provision in the original bill and supported the amendment allowing the department to intervene in private actions for greater public protection. He noted potential increased workload but saw it as manageable and cost-neutral or possibly increasing demands. Lock clarified statistics on complaints and the department's capacity to handle them, and suggested cleaning up some language in the bill related to damages.
HB641: Michael Atkins, Attorney at Shaheen and Gordon, Peterborough, NH, Legal Redress Chair, Greater Nashua NAACP Support04:26:39.159 - 12:27:15 PM; Michael Atkins, speaking on behalf of various NAACP branches in New Hampshire, supported HB641. He highlighted the bill's purpose to provide a private cause of action for victims of offenses already prohibited by RSA 354b. Atkins noted that surrounding states offer similar private causes of action and welcomed the amendment allowing the Attorney General to intervene. He emphasized the increase in civil rights complaints across different regions of New Hampshire and the broader under-reporting of such incidents. Atkins committed to working with the Attorney General's office to refine the bill's language and expressed readiness to answer any questions from the committee.
HB641: Paul Phillips, Plymouth, NH Support04:33:06.118 - 12:33:42 PM; Paul Phillips, an attorney from Plymouth, NH, and former member and chair of the New Hampshire Commission for Human Rights, spoke in support of HB641. He highlighted the bill's importance in creating a private right of action for violations of New Hampshire's Civil Rights Act, which he believes is missing from the current state law. Phillips compared this to the existing federal right of action established in 1871. He discussed the limitations of the state Attorney General's office and the Human Rights Commission in addressing all civil rights cases due to resource constraints. He argued that HB641 would empower individuals and businesses to advocate for themselves in court, similar to other existing New Hampshire laws that include private rights of action. Phillips emphasized the bill as an act of individual empowerment, urging the committee to approve it.
HB641: Katie, unknown town Support04:39:05.400 - 12:39:41 PM; Katie supported HB641 but suggested it needs amendments. She shared her personal experience with her son's special education, highlighting the challenges she faced in getting proper support. Katie proposed that the bill should include a section in school handbooks about parents' rights for handicapped children under federal law and suggested fines for violations of children's rights in education as a means of accountability.
HB641: Ray Elely, Litchfield, NH Support04:43:05.240 - 12:43:41 PM; Ray Elely from Litchfield, NH, supported HB641, pointing out the under-reporting of civil rights violations and the burden placed on minorities to go through the Attorney General for recourse. He argued that the bill aligns with the 14th Amendment and would prevent lawlessness by ensuring accountability. Elely emphasized the need for a mechanism that allows individuals to seek justice without going through the state, drawing historical parallels to illustrate the importance of stopping injustices early.
HB641: McFarland Information Only04:52:43.360 - 12:53:19 PM; McFarland discussed online testimony regarding HB641, particularly from the American Atheists organization, who opposed the bill (referred to as HP 620 in the testimony) claiming it would infringe on constitutional rights. McFarland argued that such assertions were incorrect as the bill aligns with both federal and state constitutional protections, focusing on a specific judicial standard already established. He offered his contact number for further discussion, indicating his willingness to address any concerns.
HB641: Lance Kinzer, First Amendment Partnership Support04:54:29.558 - 12:55:05 PM; Lance Kinzer, representing the First Amendment Partnership, supported HB641 by sharing his experience with the Kansas Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RIFRA). He emphasized the importance of clarifying the standard of review in religious liberty cases, citing a case where lack of clarity led to a Jehovah's Witness's death due to denied medical treatment. Kinzer argued that having a statutory reinforcement of the existing judicial standard is wise, even though New Hampshire courts have been protective of religious liberties, as seen in the 2020 State v. Mac case. He noted the bill's language is similar to federal RIFRA and addressed potential concerns about its impact on the Establishment Clause, asserting the bill's intent is to align closely with federal precedents.
HB641: Burch Information Only05:01:38.600 - 1:02:14 PM; Representative Burch discussed the bill's reference to the Flores case, clarifying that the Smith case was more relevant to the issue at hand. He questioned the value added by the legislation given the New Hampshire Supreme Court's existing interpretation in the Mac case. Kinzer responded by explaining the federalism aspect of the Flores case and the value of statutory clarity to reinforce judicial standards against future changes in court composition.
HB641: McFarland Information Only05:07:16.400 - 1:07:52 PM; McFarland asked about the bill's definition of religion, noting that the New Hampshire state constitution and the federal RIFRA do not explicitly define it. Kinzer explained that a statutory definition of religion could be overly or underly inclusive, and it's better determined on a case-by-case basis. He noted that courts are good at distinguishing sincere religious beliefs from mere philosophical ones.
HB641: Peter Chamberlain, Granite State Baptist Church, Concord Support05:10:26.000 - 1:11:02 PM; Peter Chamberlain, a pastor from the Granite State Baptist Church in Concord, supported HB641. He emphasized the importance of having laws clearly defined to protect religious freedom and prevent subjective interpretations that could change with time. Chamberlain referenced scriptures to define religion as actions based on sincerely held beliefs and advocated for the bill to be codified to protect future generations.
HB641: Timothy Shaler, Attorney, Loudon Support05:14:41.920 - 1:15:17 PM; Timothy Shaler, an attorney from Loudon, supported HB641, stating that clear statutory guidelines would help resolve conflicts between government actions and religious practices more efficiently. He argued that such clarity would reduce the complexity and cost of legal proceedings, thereby aiding citizens in navigating these issues.
HB641: Sarah Burke Cohen, New Hampshire Municipal Association Oppose05:16:34.160 - 1:17:10 PM; Sarah Burke Cohen from the New Hampshire Municipal Association spoke in opposition to HB641. She highlighted several issues with the bill, drawing parallels to the case of City of Bourne vs. Flores where a church's request for an extension in a historic district was denied, leading to a Supreme Court ruling that the federal RIFRA was unconstitutional as applied to states. Cohen expressed concern that the bill could allow religious institutions to bypass neutral zoning laws using the compelling interest test, potentially leading to abuse. She also mentioned the risk of discrimination against marginalized groups and the possibility of complex litigation over definitions of religious beliefs and what constitutes a compelling interest or narrowly tailored means, which could be costly for municipalities.
HB641: Representative Mcfallen Information Only05:19:02.760 - 1:19:38 PM; Representative Mcfallen questioned Sarah Burke Cohen about the potential for new litigation under HB641, noting that similar claims could have been made under the existing state constitution. He sought clarification on why this bill would suddenly precipitate such legal actions.
HB641: Representative Alexander Information Only05:20:44.040 - 1:21:20 PM; Representative Alexander asked Sarah Burke Cohen if a zoning ordinance violation under the bill could allow someone to sue a town for infringing on their free exercise of religion. Cohen responded by referencing the City of Bourne vs. Flores case, explaining that under the new statute, entities could challenge permit denials as violations of their religious freedom.
HB641: Representative Bur Information Only05:22:16.760 - 1:22:52 PM; Representative Bur raised concerns about the lack of definition of religion or religious practice in HB641, referencing court cases involving the use of peyote and laws of general applicability. He questioned whether the absence of these definitions in the bill could lead to problematic legal interpretations and complexities.
HB641: David Trumble, Town of [Unspecified] Information Only05:25:35.240 - 1:26:11 PM; David Trumble from an unspecified town shared his concerns about HB641, focusing on the historical context of the federal law and its intent to protect the free exercise of religion without government establishment. He discussed the implications of government financial assistance to religious institutions, questioning whether the bill's construction statute would allow such funding as long as it serves secular purposes. Trumble emphasized the need to ensure the bill does not authorize government funding of religion, referencing New Hampshire's constitutional restrictions and potential civil rights issues.
HB633: Gary Daniels, Representative from Hillsboro District 43, Milford Support05:32:17.718 - 1:32:53 PM; Gary Daniels, the prime sponsor of HB633, presented the bill as a bipartisan effort to address New Hampshire's housing crisis through a private sector solution, the Housing Investment Trust. He highlighted the severity of the housing shortage, projecting a deficit of 60,000 units by 2030. Daniels emphasized the need for innovative solutions, noting his past experiences in the Senate Finance Committee where public sector solutions were not effective. He introduced the concept of the Housing Investment Trust as a 501c3 charity that would use private investments to acquire and rehabilitate properties, thereby increasing the housing supply and generating state tax revenues. The Trust's revolving loan fund would enable capital investors to fund housing projects, with repayments circulating back into the fund. Daniels expressed hope that the committee would support this initiative by voting 'ought to pass' on HB633.
HB633: Michael Delano, Amherst Support05:35:33.280 - 1:36:09 PM; Michael Delano, with 50 years of real estate experience, supported HB633 which proposes to add the definition of a Housing Investment Trust to RSA 293b and waive associated fees. He described the Trust as a 501c3 charity aimed at easing New Hampshire's housing crisis by offering stable, affordable housing options for working wage households. The Trust would be privately funded and operate to expand and preserve affordable housing across the state. Delano detailed the Trust's operations, including managing subsidiary trusts to buy and renovate workforce housing units. He addressed concerns about property taxes, explaining that exemptions would be considered on a town-by-town basis. Delano also discussed the potential for attracting investors, including socially responsible ones, and clarified that the Trust's structure would prevent market distortion and ensure that housing remains affordable for multiple families.
HB611: Representative Bu Sure, Portsmouth Support06:16:18.478 - 2:16:54 PM; Representative Bu Sure introduced House Bill 611, aimed at saving the state money by addressing issues with the recruitment statute. He explained that the statute allowed the state to recoup money from individuals appointed public defenders or private court-appointed lawyers, which was previously set at around $800 for a misdemeanor and went into the general fund. He noted changes made about five to six years ago by the legislature that stopped recouping money from people found not guilty or with dismissed charges, and shifted the determination to the sentencing hearing. This resulted in a significant decrease in funds collected by the Office of Cost Containment, as judges started reviewing cases individually and less frequently sent them to the office for collection. Representative Sure also mentioned that the cost of collection has decreased to $380,000 this past year, but the amount collected is still less than the cost of collection.
HB611: Charlie Arlinghouse, Commissioner of Administrative Services Information Only06:22:29.478 - 2:23:05 PM; Commissioner Charlie Arlinghouse provided information on the fiscal impact of the recruitment statute and the proposed changes in HB611. He noted that the budget presented by the Governor does not include the Office of Cost Containment starting July 1, 2025, indicating a trend towards its elimination. He highlighted that collections have significantly decreased from $2.5 million to about $300,000 annually, with the cost of collection outweighing the amount collected. He suggested an immediate effective date upon passage of the bill to avoid a limbo period where collections continue unnecessarily. He also proposed language allowing the Commissioner to take reasonable measures to wind down the office and advocated for stopping all collections upon the bill's passage to avoid potential legal issues. Additionally, he recommended the destruction of all related records to prevent future collection attempts.
HB611: Cassie Keenan, Deputy Commissioner of DAS Information Only06:22:29.478 - 2:23:05 PM; Cassie Keenan, accompanying Commissioner Arlinghouse, clarified that their testimony was to provide information rather than support or oppose the bill. She reiterated the points made by the Commissioner, emphasizing the decline in collections and the proposed changes to the recruitment statute. She supported the suggestions for an immediate effective date, stopping all collections upon passage, and the destruction of records to avoid future complications.
HB611: Representative Alexander Information Only06:26:15.440 - 2:26:51 PM; Representative Alexander sought clarification on the fiscal note, specifically about the decline in collections due to previous legislative changes. Commissioner Arlinghouse explained that the changes limiting collections to only those found guilty and shifting the determination to the sentencing hearing have significantly reduced the number of cases sent to the Office of Cost Containment. He noted that collections have been consistently lower each month compared to the previous year for the past four to five years.
HB611: Representative Smith Information Only06:27:48.840 - 2:28:24 PM; Representative Smith asked for clarification on the timeline mentioned in the testimony, correcting the fiscal year from 2026 to 2025. Commissioner Arlinghouse acknowledged the correction, confirming the budget change effective July 1, 2025.

Lynn, Bob(Chairman)(R)[A]2024	Peternel, Katy(Clerk)(R)[A]2024	Mannion, Dennis(V Chairman)(R)[A-]2024
Smith, Marjorie(D)[CT]2024	Bergeron, Dan(D)	Horrigan, Timothy(D)[CT]2024
Berch, Paul(D)[INC]2022	Turer, Eric(D)[CT]2024	Tripp, Richard(R)[B+]2024
Andrus, Louise(R)[B+]2024	Manos, Zoe(D)[CT]2024	Perez, Kristine(R)[A]2024
Kuttab, Katelyn(R)[A-]2024	Alexander, Joe(R)[A]2024	McFarlane, Donald(R)
Rombeau, Catherine(D)[CT]2024	Paige, Mark(D)[CT]2024	Morton, Jonathan(R)