Warning: Bill numbers and names are based on text-to-speech transcript which may have errors due to transcription issues or ad hoc/incomplete language use by committee.
(New Title) exempting classification of individuals based on biological sex from the definition of an unlawful discriminatory practice in certain limited circumstances.
(New Title) exempting classification of individuals based on biological sex from the definition of an unlawful discriminatory practice in certain limited circumstances.
Senator Gannon, the prime sponsor, explains that SB 459 focuses on three areas: sports fields, locker rooms, and prisons, based on the governor's previous veto message. He argues it protects opportunities for girls in sports by preventing biological males from competing, citing physical strength differences and personal anecdotes. For locker rooms, he emphasizes privacy rights with a compelling state interest. In prisons, he supports leaving classification to wardens for inmate safety. He believes the bill is narrowly tailored and likely to pass legal muster.
SB459
Oppose00:20:00.000 - 10:15:21 AM
Bonnie Bruno opposes SB 459, noting it is supported by a minority despite 351 sign-ins in opposition. She acknowledges concerns about privacy, safety, and fairness in athletics but argues the bill does not solve them and instead legalizes discrimination. Existing laws already protect against harassment and assault. She references vetoes of similar bills by Governors Sununu and Ayotte, calling SB 459 overly broad, impractical, and exclusionary. It redefines discrimination to exclude certain forms, setting a precedent for state-sanctioned discrimination against transgender individuals.
SB459
Oppose00:22:42.220 - 10:18:03 AM
Sam Hawkins testified in opposition to Senate Bill 459, highlighting the mental health impacts of stigma and discrimination on transgender and non-binary individuals, particularly in mental health treatment facilities. He expressed concern that the bill's provisions allowing classification based on biological sex in these facilities would expose individuals in acute psychiatric crisis to further harm, hindering their recovery. Hawkins noted the good relationships with facility operators but urged the committee to vote down the bill to prevent discrimination in treatment settings.
SB459
Oppose00:26:44.441 - 10:22:05 AM
Michael Haley opposed SB 459, arguing it does not improve upon previously vetoed bills and lacks a compelling state interest for excluding transgender women from certain spaces. He stated the bill is not narrowly tailored, advocating for individualized assessments instead of blanket exclusions. Haley discussed sports, noting minimal transgender participation in Olympics without impacting cisgender women, historical harms from genetic testing including intersex disqualifications, and the Prison Rape Elimination Act's requirement for individualized housing decisions in prisons to prevent sexual assault.
SB459
Support00:32:44.309 - 10:28:05 AM
Bronwyn Sims supported SB 459 as amended, praising efforts to protect biological sex in athletics and detention facilities but calling for further strengthening to cover restrooms, locker rooms, showers, and changing areas. She cited a recent Title IX investigation into Contocook Valley School District in Peterborough for allowing biological males into girls' facilities, violating privacy. As a gymnastics coach, athlete, and survivor of male violence, Sims shared a personal experience of intrusion by a man identifying as a woman in a locker room at the Keene YMCA.
SB459
Oppose00:34:50.509 - 10:30:11 AM
David Trumbull opposed SB 459, arguing it is not narrowly tailored and thus unconstitutional, as it imposes a blanket ban without exceptions. He provided examples: a transgender girl on puberty blockers and hormones lacking competitive advantages, and intersex individuals not addressed by the bill. Trumbull noted that housing transgender women in male mental health units would violate rights to treatment and consent under RSA 135-C. He also highlighted heightened sexual assault risks for transgender women in prisons, urging opposition on constitutional grounds.
SB459
Oppose00:41:24.897 - 10:36:45 AM
Willow Earth, a trans woman, opposed SB 459 as discriminatory, making it harder for trans people to live authentically. She argued that limiting trans kids to locker rooms not aligning with their gender identity would discourage sports and recreational participation. Earth expressed concerns about trans women in men's prisons increasing vulnerability to sexual violence and emphasized that being transgender is not a fad or trend, with historical evidence dating back to ancient times.
SB459
Oppose00:43:29.059 - 10:38:50 AM
The speaker criticizes the committee for allowing questions to supporters while restricting testimony, accuses the bill of being a stepping stone to broader discrimination including genocide against trans people, dismisses concerns about bathrooms and prisons, calls the process pathetic, and predicts repetitive fear-mongering testimony from opponents while ignoring statistics and real suffering.
SB459
Oppose00:45:50.263 - 10:41:11 AM
Sarah shares that her 17-year-old transgender daughter was diagnosed with anxiety and depression at age 11 and received counseling. After starting gender-affirming care at 13, including puberty blockers at 14 with therapist support, her daughter's symptoms completely resolved after one year, describing it as life-saving care. She also recounts an incident where a boy threatened to assault her daughter in school, arguing that the bill would force her into unsafe situations like a locker room with potential assailants, questioning why her daughter's safety is less important.
SB459
Oppose00:47:03.213 - 10:42:24 AM
Tanya, who has been transitioning for over a year, describes how transitioning brought her peace and changed her life for the better before starting. She expresses devastation at the prospect of being denied hormone replacement therapy (HRT) in prison under this bill. She notes other bills restricting restroom use could lead to arrest and assault or loss of healthcare in male facilities. She views the combination of bills as terror tactics against trans people, potentially amounting to cruel and unusual punishment.
SB459
Oppose00:50:05.207 - 10:45:26 AM
Amy opposes the bill, summarizing repeated testimonies from prior hearings on similar legislation. She highlights concerns from residents about discrimination, safety and privacy issues from policing gender presentation, expert predictions of vetoes, nuances of anatomy and gender that can't be legislated, desires for government non-interference in bodily autonomy and locker rooms, parental worries about child gender inquisitions, and cis women's safety concerns. She criticizes prioritizing out-of-state groups and divisive politics, urging ITL based on constituent consensus against this discriminatory distraction.
SB459
Support00:52:56.225 - 10:48:17 AM
Beth argues that segregating sports and prisons by sex is common sense for safety. She accuses opponents of pretending otherwise, either out of ignorance or deceit, and calls it insane to allow men into women's spaces. She urges voting ought to pass on SB 459 to protect women.
SB459
Oppose00:53:34.185 - 10:48:55 AM
Scott, a transgender man who lives as any other man in his roles as brother, uncle, son, and godfather, shares his experience of being raised as a girl but identifying as male. He explains that trans women, similarly, are women deserving equal rights and access to women's facilities, sports, and incarceration, just as he accesses men's spaces. He hopes this perspective aids the committee's decision.
SB459
Oppose00:55:41.074 - 10:51:02 AM
As an Executive Counselor overseeing state fiscal management, risk, and legal exposure, Karen warns that non-compliance with the Prison Rape Elimination Act could lead to loss of federal funds and liability. She notes two prior gubernatorial vetoes of similar bills, stating this legislation harms the state and taxpayers. Using a baking analogy, she argues that flawed legislation, like a ruined batch of pancakes, should be rejected entirely, urging opposition and ITL.
SB459
Information Only00:57:00.000 - 10:52:21 AM
Caden begins testimony by thanking the committee for hearing their input.
SB459
Oppose00:57:47.862 - 10:53:08 AM
Caden Dole, a private citizen from Newmarket, emphasizes the nuanced nature of the issue of biological sex in sports and facilities. He agrees on concerns for fairness and safety for all involved but argues that SB 459 provides a blanket solution that ignores nuance and fails to protect everyone. He criticizes the bill as an extremist position and urges the committee to veto it in favor of a more balanced approach.
SB459
Oppose00:59:55.762 - 10:55:16 AM
Louise Spencer speaks on her own behalf and on behalf of the Kent Street Coalition, an all-volunteer grassroots organization. She opposes SB 459 for causing unnecessary pain to many and notes the eloquent reasons already stated. As a taxpayer, she highlights the lack of a fiscal note and potential costly court challenges. She argues the bill does not address real needs of Granite Staters, weakens the state, and wastes resources.
SB552
Vote01:11:10.696 - 11:06:31 AM
Representative Kuta moves Ought to Pass (OTP) on SB 552, seconded by Representative Perez. No further discussion from the mover. The motion passes 9-8, with majority report to be written by Representative Kuta and minority by Representative Smith.
SB552
Information Only01:12:50.298 - 11:08:11 AM
An unidentified representative inquires about the number of 'bathroom bills' acted upon, learning this is the fifth. They question the repetition of such legislation.
SB414
Vote01:13:41.445 - 11:09:02 AM
Representative Perez moves Inexpedient to Legislate (ITL) on SB 414, seconded by Representative Tripp. The mover notes the motion is self-explanatory. The motion passes 16-1, but a minority report prevents consent calendar placement. Majority report to be written by Representative Perez.
SB519
Vote01:15:50.224 - 11:11:11 AM
Representative Scully moves to commit SB 519 to interim study, seconded by Representative Andrus. Scully suggests including bill titles in introductions for clarity and mentions drafting an amendment, noting others (Representatives McFarlane and Tura) have also drafted amendments. This reflects concerns over drone issues without federal guidance.
SB519 2026-1360,2026-1298H,2026-1380H,2026-1381H
Information Only01:17:47.345 - 11:13:08 AM
Suggests that the prepared amendments be made part of the record to inform the interim study discussion.
SB519 2026-1360,2026-1298H,2026-1380H,2026-1381H
Information Only01:18:53.825 - 11:14:14 AM
Agrees that amendments should be part of the record, notes discussion with clerk on proceeding with interim study motion first, and asks representatives to state their amendment numbers for the record.
SB519 2026-1360,2026-1298H,2026-1380H,2026-1381H
Support01:18:53.825 - 11:14:14 AM
States their amendment number as 2026-1360 and distributes it to the committee.
SB519 2026-1360,2026-1298H,2026-1380H,2026-1381H
Support01:19:41.538 - 11:15:02 AM
Thanks the chair and states their amendment number as 2026-1298H.
SB519 2026-1360,2026-1298H,2026-1380H,2026-1381H
Information Only01:19:41.538 - 11:15:02 AM
Indicates Rep. McFarland's amendments as 2026-1380H and 2026-1381H.
SB519 2026-1360,2026-1298H,2026-1380H,2026-1381H
Information Only01:20:47.972 - 11:16:08 AM
Discuss procedural questions regarding minority reports, including that a minority motion would need to propose something other than interim study, such as OTP as amended.
SB519 2026-1360,2026-1298H,2026-1380H,2026-1381H
Information Only01:20:47.972 - 11:16:08 AM
Clarifies procedural aspects, noting that minority amendment cannot be OTPA if not adopted, and questions the process.
SB519 2026-1360,2026-1298H,2026-1380H,2026-1381H
Information Only01:21:57.132 - 11:17:18 AM
Raises concerns about the timing of the interim study deadline relative to the September bill filing period and November elections, asking how amendments could be introduced as standalone bills and identified as from the interim study.
SB519 2026-1360,2026-1298H,2026-1380H,2026-1381H
Information Only01:21:57.132 - 11:17:18 AM
Explains that a minority position can propose ought to pass as amended instead of interim study, and that the interim study committee can later adopt amendments or other changes as decided by the committee and House.
SB519 2026-1360,2026-1298H,2026-1380H,2026-1381H
Support01:23:09.172 - 11:18:30 AM
States they would vote for interim study because important issues have been raised, acknowledges the significance, and hopes the committee will consider submitted amendments and other issues during study.
SB519 2026-1360,2026-1298H,2026-1380H,2026-1381H
Support01:23:09.172 - 11:18:30 AM
Agrees with voting for interim study, wants their amendment along with McFarland's and Turner's amendments to be considered in the mix during the study.
SB519 2026-1360,2026-1298H,2026-1380H,2026-1381H
Support01:23:59.452 - 11:19:20 AM
Agrees the issue is worthy of further consideration, notes complexities like federal preemption, and states their vote for interim study is not a way to kill the bill but to allow needed further work.
SB519 2026-1360,2026-1298H,2026-1380H,2026-1381H
Information Only01:23:59.452 - 11:19:20 AM
Seeks clarification that there won't be a minority report unless someone opposes interim study, and notes it would not go on consent calendar if so.
SB519 2026-1360,2026-1298H,2026-1380H,2026-1381H
Information Only01:25:14.284 - 11:20:35 AM
Explains the majority report can include that the committee sees need for study and mentions amendments raised for careful review.
SB519 2026-1360,2026-1298H,2026-1380H,2026-1381H
Information Only01:25:14.284 - 11:20:35 AM
Points out that Rep. McFarland was not in the room when the motion was made, so cannot vote unless motion is withdrawn and renewed.
SB519 2026-1360,2026-1298H,2026-1380H,2026-1381H
Information Only01:26:30.730 - 11:21:51 AM
Asks Rep. Scully if willing to withdraw the motion and remake it to allow Rep. McFarland to vote.
SB519 2026-1360,2026-1298H,2026-1380H,2026-1381H
Support01:26:30.730 - 11:21:51 AM
Agrees to withdraw the motion after confirming with Rep. McFarland.
SB519 2026-1360,2026-1298H,2026-1380H,2026-1381H
Support01:26:30.730 - 11:21:51 AM
Withdraws the second to the original motion.
SB519 2026-1360,2026-1298H,2026-1380H,2026-1381H
Support01:26:30.730 - 11:21:51 AM
Remakes the motion to recommend interim study on SB 519.
SB519 2026-1360,2026-1298H,2026-1380H,2026-1381H
Support01:26:30.730 - 11:21:51 AM
Seconds the renewed motion for interim study.
SB519 2026-1360,2026-1298H,2026-1380H,2026-1381H
Vote01:27:36.170 - 11:22:57 AM
Roll call vote on motion for interim study: all 18 members vote yes (Vice Chair Mannion, Reps. Mazur, Tripp, Andrews, Clerk, Perez, McFarland, Scully, Ball, Birch, Smith, Horrigan, Page, Manos, Turner, Rombo, Bergeron, Chairman Lin). Motion passes 18-0, placed on consent calendar. Rep. Scully assigned to write the report by 5 p.m. Saturday.
SB619 2026-1347H
Support01:27:36.170 - 11:22:57 AM
Moves ought to pass on SB 619FN.
SB619 2026-1347H
Support01:27:36.170 - 11:22:57 AM
Seconds the motion and notes there is an amendment to consider.
SB619 2026-1347H
Support01:28:49.945 - 11:24:10 AM
Presents and explains amendment 2026-1347H: on line 8, changes 'legal' to 'lawful in accordance with paragraph IV-A' to reference the definition of lawful confiscation (warrant or probable cause of imminent harm); removes provision for forfeiture if no bond produced as it would be unconstitutional taking. Confirms everyone has a copy.
SB619 2026-1347H
Support01:30:13.349 - 11:25:34 AM
Supports the amendment and the bill as amended. Clarifies that the amendment makes the 14-day time limit for court hearings mandatory, not discretionary.
SB619 2026-1347H
Information Only01:30:13.349 - 11:25:34 AM
Confirms the 14-day limit was already mandatory and unchanged by the amendment.
SB619 2026-1347H
Vote01:31:09.996 - 11:26:30 AM
Voice vote by show of hands on amendment 2026-1347H passes 18-0.
SB619 2026-1347H
Support01:31:09.996 - 11:26:30 AM
Moves ought to pass as amended.
SB619 2026-1347H
Support01:31:09.996 - 11:26:30 AM
Seconds the main motion.
SB619 2026-1347H
Vote01:32:45.776 - 11:28:06 AM
Roll call vote on ought to pass as amended: all 18 members vote yes (Vice Chair Mannion, Reps. Measer, Tritt, Andrews, Clerk, Perez, McFarland, Scully, Ball, Birch, Smith, Horrigan, Page, Manos, Turner, Rombo, Bergeron, Chairman Lin). Motion passes 18-0, placed on consent calendar. Rep. Kutop assigned to write the report.
SB459
Information Only01:31:09.996 - 11:26:30 AM
Opens executive session on SB 459, notes consensus on disposition but differing views: one side believes the bill should not exist at all, the other finds it under-inclusive compared to other bills like SB 552 which was favorably voted.
SB459
Oppose01:32:45.776 - 11:28:06 AM
Moves inexpedient to legislate (ITL) on SB 459.
SB459
Oppose01:32:45.776 - 11:28:06 AM
Seconds the motion for ITL.
SB459
Information Only01:32:45.776 - 11:28:06 AM
States that the report will reflect both sides of the aisle's perspectives on the bill.
SB459
Vote01:33:58.796 - 11:29:19 AM
Roll call vote on ITL for SB 459: all listed members vote yes (Chair Mannion, Reps. Mazur, Tripp, Andrews, Clerk, Perez, McFarland, Scully, Ball, Birch, Smith, Rombo, Bergeron, Chairman Lynn), assuming 18-0. Rep. Birch assigned to write the report explaining both sides.
SB464 Proposed Amendment
Information Only01:37:56.429 - 11:33:17 AM
Representative Katelyn Kutab introduces Senate Bill 464, relative to civil rights enforcement. She states for the record that she is introducing the bill and notes that the prime sponsor will speak further to it shortly, declining questions at this time.
SB464 Proposed Amendment
Oppose01:38:30.000 - 11:33:51 AM
Bonnie Bruno opposes SB 464, noting opposition from at least 320 other Granite Staters who signed in, as well as those on the blue sheets. She argues that the bill changes the standard for civil rights enforcement by requiring prohibited conduct to be substantially motivated by hostility toward a protected class, which she sees as a narrowing rather than clarification of the law. Bruno questions the purpose of making it harder to protect people and highlights that the bill raises the burden of proof from demonstrating harm to proving a specific level of intent and hostility. She explains that civil rights violations often manifest through patterns, decisions, and outcomes rather than explicit hostility, and urges the committee to find the bill inexpedient to legislate (ITL).
SB464 Proposed Amendment
Oppose01:39:10.538 - 11:34:31 AM
Sean Locke, representing the Department of Justice, opposes SB 464 and the proposed amendment, arguing that it takes New Hampshire in the wrong direction by reducing protections against hate or bias-motivated violence, property damage, threats, and trespass. He cites increasing incidents of hate crimes from data sources like NIBRS (from 17 in 2019 to 43 in 2025), DOJ complaints (from 80 to over 225 per year), and nationwide Anti-Defamation League reports. Locke advocates for modernizing and expanding civil rights laws instead. He critiques the bill's addition of 'substantially motivated by,' creating uncertainty compared to most states' simpler language; the requirement of 'hostility,' which may be under-inclusive; and the nexus between victim and protected characteristics, rejected by courts and unnecessary. He provides examples like a same-sex couple assault in Hillsborough County, a shooting in Ware motivated by prejudice, freedom riders in the civil rights era, anti-Semitic graffiti at Laconia State School, and vandalism in Portsmouth targeting inclusive businesses. Regarding the amendment, he opposes the imminence requirement for threats, as it limits proactive protection, citing the Portsmouth case where early action prevented harm during a pride festival. Locke suggests expansions like a hate crime task force, protections for houses of worship, and including harassment. He recommends ITL or interim study and engages in Q&A on First Amendment concerns, examples like the Hood case, and DOJ's enforcement discretion.
SB464 Proposed Amendment
Support02:18:12.711 - 12:13:33 PM
Senator Daryl Abbas, prime sponsor of SB 464, supports the bill and views the proposed amendment as an improvement aligning with his intent. He acknowledges the current law does not require targeting a victim but argues for clarity to prevent selective prosecution and protect First Amendment rights. Abbas references the Hood case in Portsmouth, where the Supreme Court ruled the statute vague as applied, noting that without a hostility requirement tied to a victim or class, actions like removing a hateful sign could violate the law even for well-intentioned individuals. He emphasizes that the bill ensures violations involve actual victims targeted due to protected characteristics, aligning with typical enforcement and the ACLU's amicus brief, which highlights that most cases involve direct targeting. Abbas argues this prevents overreach into protected speech and ensures policies focus on unlawful conduct motivated by bias against specific individuals or groups.
SB464 Proposed Amendment
Support02:24:10.298 - 12:19:31 PM
The witness explains the concept of 'substantially motivated by hostility' using a personal example of being targeted due to race without overt hostility, emphasizing that it refers to the driving factor behind the threat or action. They clarify that hostility involves targeted derogatory statements, not generalized ones. Addressing a hypothetical bad actor denying hostility while committing acts like graffiti on a synagogue or harassing someone, the witness notes that denials are common, arrests are based on underlying crimes, and fact-finders determine motivation based on evidence of hate towards a class. They argue that 'substantially motivated' provides reasonable certainty as it uses plain meaning and appears in other statutes, similar to existing harassment laws with subjective elements like 'annoy or alarm'.
SB464 Proposed Amendment
Oppose02:30:02.397 - 12:25:23 PM
Vanessa Blaise testifies on behalf of the DD Council, stating the bill would negatively impact the developmental disability community by weakening civil rights protections, contrary to the DOJ's recommendation to modernize laws. She cites FBI data showing a 30% rise in hate crimes against Americans with disabilities from 2019-2023, and a 2019 study revealing underreporting with fewer than 0.5% of incidents recorded by law enforcement, indicating a failure in equal protection. The 'substantial motivating factor' standard increases the evidentiary burden, making protections unreachable for vulnerable victims, and the Council urges building better justice pathways instead of erecting barriers.
SB464 Proposed Amendment
Oppose02:32:52.146 - 12:28:13 PM
Gasali strongly opposes SB 464, arguing that requiring harm to be 'substantially motivated by hostility' misrepresents discrimination, which is often subtle, pattern-based, and not explicitly hostile, making it hard to prove. This standard ignores intersectional experiences across race, gender, disability, etc., and socioeconomic factors, reducing accountability. As an attorney, the sponsor knows this raises the proof threshold to limit liability, benefiting subtle discriminators rather than victims. In a system where accountability is already inconsistent, the bill exacerbates issues in housing, employment, and education without addressing real needs. Gasali questions who requested this change, as communities seek enforcement of existing standards, not weakened protections.
SB464 Proposed Amendment
Oppose02:37:52.868 - 12:33:13 PM
Karen Rosenberg opposes SB 464, arguing that it would diminish protections for people with disabilities by introducing vague, undefined terms to prove civil rights violations. She explains that current law allows the Attorney General to address harassment and coercion against vulnerable individuals, such as those in community residences, through injunctions. The bill's requirements, like proving substantial motivation by hostility or imminent infliction of harm, could allow perpetrators to evade accountability by claiming non-discriminatory reasons for their actions, such as complaints about parking or visitors. Rosenberg notes that the existing standard already requires intent to terrorize or coerce, which is sufficiently high, and suggests collaboration with the Attorney General's office to address First Amendment concerns without weakening protections.
SB464 Proposed Amendment
Oppose02:41:32.455 - 12:36:53 PM
James McKim, speaking in his personal capacity, opposes SB 464 based on his experiences with racism and involvement in civil rights cases. He argues that discrimination is rarely obvious and hard to prove, and the bill's focus on intent ignores the real harm caused. The undefined terms like 'substantially motivated' and 'imminently inflict harm' could protect perpetrators who misperceive threats, such as crossing the street due to bias against people of color. McKim emphasizes that civil rights laws protect against unequal treatment even without proven intent, and raising the bar would leave more victims without recourse, weakening equality and increasing fear among protected groups. He urges the committee to vote inexpedient to legislate (ITL) on the bill.
SB464 Proposed Amendment
Oppose02:46:13.686 - 12:41:34 PM
Grace Kandake urges the committee to vote ITL on SB 464, sharing personal stories of discrimination to illustrate its potential to weaken protections. As a child, she was targeted with racial slurs and a thrown object, which could be dismissed as a joke under the bill despite its hateful impact. More recently, she and her mother encountered a swastika on a bridge, symbolizing hate and triggering discussions on surviving authoritarianism, given her mother's background. Kandake stresses that symbols and words have profound effects on individuals and communities, outweighing intent, and differentiates between free expression in public spaces and targeted harassment. She questions the bill's purpose in complicating enforcement of already hard-to-prove civil rights violations and cites examples like pink armbands at sports events to show how context amplifies harm to protected groups. She calls for laws that strengthen community safety without negotiating dignity.
SB464 Proposed Amendment
Oppose02:55:56.512 - 12:51:17 PM
Michael Haley opposes SB 464, highlighting its potential to remove protections for faith communities and pride events supporting LGBTQ individuals. He notes increased vandalism of churches displaying affirming messages, which current law covers as bias-motivated, but the bill's requirement for animus toward the victim's protected status would exclude cases where the church itself isn't LGBTQ. For pride celebrations, assaults intended to terrorize the community might not qualify if the victim isn't LGBTQ, undermining deterrence of hate crimes. Haley clarifies these concerns involve actions like vandalism and assault, not protected speech, and addresses a question about mistaken identity in attacks, noting the bill heightens proof burdens even if the impact is to terrorize based on perceived status.
SB464 Proposed Amendment
Oppose03:01:45.597 - 12:57:06 PM
Kayden Dole opposes SB 464, drawing from five years as a resident dean dealing with hate graffiti like swastikas and the N-word, and threats to communities. He argues the bill hinders community healing and learning by removing pathways to address systemic civil rights violations without a singular victim. Dole urges considering diverse perspectives, noting the committee's composition lacks representation from affected groups like people of color, women, and disabled individuals, and calls for listening to those with lived experiences. He references historical figures like Thurgood Marshall and Fannie Lou Hamer who fought systemic issues collectively, emphasizing that civil rights laws enable community responses to bias. Dole questions the kind of pathways future generations need for rights, arguing the bill eliminates peaceful legal avenues for fairness and impacts everyone by weakening societal progress.
SB464
Oppose03:09:19.433 - 1:04:40 PM
Pope Files expresses concerns about the proposed changes to civil rights protections, particularly the addition of 'substantially' to the motivation requirement, which he believes makes the burden of proof too high and could deter victims from coming forward. He argues that motivation doesn't need to be hostile to be harmful and that hateful acts, like placing a swastika, can affect entire communities even without a direct victim. He fears this would prevent effective defense of civil rights in cases of threats or attacks.
SB464 2026-1369h
Support03:11:21.663 - 1:06:42 PM
Chairman Lynn moves to adopt amendment 2026-1369h and explains its necessity to address the overbreadth of the current law, using examples like the Portsmouth case where both hanging and removing hateful signs could lead to liability. He argues the amendment captures intended scenarios, like targeting a synagogue indirectly, and that terms like 'substantial' and 'hostility' are established in law without issues. Adding 'substantially' slightly raises the burden to protect First Amendment rights in cases involving speech. He emphasizes 'imminently' to distinguish protected speech from true threats and clarifies section two to avoid ambiguity, ensuring the statute doesn't interfere with constitutional rights.
SB464 2026-1369h
Oppose03:22:37.940 - 1:17:58 PM
Representative Burk argues against the amendment, stating it reduces the efficacy of civil rights laws by prioritizing hypotheticals over real witness experiences. No witnesses supported the amendment except the sponsor. The amendment provides a roadmap for discriminators to evade accountability by requiring proof of hostility and stripping 'it shall be unlawful,' turning a clear prohibition into an ambiguous policy statement. This weakens enforcement, limits suits, and makes courts reluctant to award remedies, as seen in cases like Alexander v. Sandoval.
SB464 2026-1369h
Oppose03:24:10.897 - 1:19:31 PM
Representative Turk initially viewed the bill as inexpedient to legislate (ITL) but suggests interim study due to narrow issues raised in testimony, like Attorney Locke's offer to refine language. However, the bill and amendment have broad implications that could hinder civil rights protections.
SB464 2026-1369h
Oppose03:28:13.377 - 1:23:34 PM
Representative Mannion agrees with prior points and focuses on lines 15-16 in section two, noting the Attorney General's representative highlighted ambiguity. He argues that 'substantially motivated by hostility' language already exists in criminal code (RSA 651:6) without issue, and the amendment strengthens First Amendment but weakens civil rights efficacy.
SB464 2026-1369h
Oppose03:29:18.115 - 1:24:39 PM
Representative Smith, drawing from experience with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, emphasizes that current discrimination persists and the amendment ignores compelling testimony from witnesses and the DOJ representative about real-life harms. He urges voting down the amendment and bill or sending to interim study, as it makes civil rights enforcement harder, not easier.
SB464 2026-1369h
Oppose03:32:42.399 - 1:28:03 PM
Representative Page contextualizes Shakespeare's 'kill all the lawyers' as a compliment to lawyers as guardians of the law, paralleling civil rights statutes' context amid ongoing discrimination. He notes the Attorney General's deputy's alarm that the amendment frustrates this purpose, and compelling testimony warns against it. He will vote against the amendment and bill.
SB464 2026-1369h
Oppose03:34:57.599 - 1:30:18 PM
Representative Hork expresses concern over striking 'it shall be unlawful' in lines 15-16, which triggers civil remedies (RSA 354-B:3) and criminal penalties (RSA 354-B:4). Removing it could invalidate these sections, creating unforeseen consequences by eliminating provisions for unlawful violations.
SB464 2026-1369h
Support03:36:05.399 - 1:31:26 PM
Representative McFarland cites the prosecution of Christopher Hood based on disliked speech and speculation about gun ownership and public safety, calling it close to thought crime. He concurs the language must be corrected to uphold standards in a free state.