Committee Summary for Senate Judiciary (03/18/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
SB264 00:11:58.240 - 12:08:54 PM	Executive Session	relative to the therapeutic cannabis program.	Prentiss, Suzanne(D)[F]2024
Unclear 00:18:57.720 - 12:15:53 PM	General Working Session	Unclear
HB265 00:32:23.720 - 12:29:19 PM	Executive Session	requiring that a public body's meeting minutes include start and end times of the meeting and the printed name and signature of the recording secretary	Smith, Marjorie(D)[CT]2024
HB592 01:06:10.039 - 1:03:06 PM	Public Hearing	relative to magistrates and the standards applicable to and the administration of bail.	Berry, Ross(R)[A-]2024
HB592 01:39:28.599 - 1:36:24 PM	Executive Session	relative to magistrates and the standards applicable to and the administration of bail.	Berry, Ross(R)[A-]2024
HB265 02:02:09.800 - 1:59:05 PM	Executive Session	requiring that a public body's meeting minutes include start and end times of the meeting and the printed name and signature of the recording secretary	Smith, Marjorie(D)[CT]2024
SB38 02:03:23.679 - 2:00:19 PM	Executive Session	relative to state recognition of biological sex.	Avard, Kevin(R)[C+]2024
SB268 2025-1044s 02:05:45.880 - 2:02:41 PM	Executive Session	permitting classification of individuals based on biological sex under certain limited circumstances.	Avard, Kevin(R)[C+]2024
SB260 02:07:54.280 - 2:04:50 PM	Executive Session	relative to access to abortion care.	Altschiller, Debra(D)[CT]2024

SB264: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:11:58.240 - 12:08:54 PM; The speaker moved to pass SB264 without discussion. The bill dealt with equating physician's assistants to providers, making restrictions tougher, and addressing unethical behavior such as giving money for going to alternative treatment centers for marijuana.
Unclear: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:18:57.720 - 12:15:53 PM; The speaker mentioned waiting for a couple of members of the committee and that they would be working on the bail bill at 2 o'clock.
HB265: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:32:23.720 - 12:29:19 PM; The speaker announced a recess in the judiciary's executive session at 2 PM to discuss bail, after which they would return to the executive session.
HB265: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:33:12.720 - 12:30:08 PM; The speaker confirmed the number 145, likely referring to a bill or amendment number, in response to the chairman.
HB265: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:48:46.400 - 12:45:42 PM; The speaker moved to come out of recess and into an executive session to discuss HB265, proposing a motion of Inexpedient to Legislate (ITL). They argued that the existing law balances municipal authority and religious land use rights, suggesting that repealing RSA might expose religious institutions to discriminatory zoning practices, potentially infringing on religious freedoms.
HB265: Unnamed Speaker Oppose00:49:47.720 - 12:46:43 PM; The speaker seconded the motion to ITL HB265 and discussed the reasons for opposition. They argued that zoning and land use should focus on dimensions, noise, light, and hours of operation, not on the specific use like religious activities, which they see as content-based restrictions. They expressed concern that the law goes beyond what zoning should cover and could lead to discriminatory practices.
HB265: Unnamed Speaker Support00:51:09.000 - 12:48:05 PM; The speaker supported the existing law, arguing that it was intended to avoid mitigation issues and protect religious land use rights. They mentioned that churches have unique features that might not fit typical neighborhood character but should not be discriminated against based on their religious use. They believed the law was new and had not heard of issues warranting its repeal.
HB265: Unnamed Speaker Oppose00:52:30.599 - 12:49:26 PM; The speaker opposed the bill, arguing that zoning should focus on general applicability laws like exits, setbacks, and building coverage, not on the content of the use. They believed that denying a building permit based on religious use would be discriminatory, but zoning boards should not have to reconsider ordinances just because of religious use. They felt that zoning should stay within its lane and not consider the purpose of the property.
HB265: Unnamed Speaker Support00:53:41.599 - 12:50:37 PM; The speaker supported the existing law, arguing that it sets clear guidelines on what can and cannot be regulated regarding religious land use. They believed that denying a building permit because it does not fit the neighborhood's character based on religious use is content-based and discriminatory. They emphasized that zoning restrictions should be about general safety and property value concerns, not the purpose of the property.
HB265: Unnamed Speaker Oppose00:54:41.520 - 12:51:37 PM; The speaker opposed the bill, arguing that zoning and planning boards should not consider the purpose of the property, such as religious use, but should focus on the impact on neighbors like lighting, noise, and hours of operation. They believed that zoning should stay within its lane and not venture into subjective purposes of properties. They noted a lack of consensus on the issue.
HB265: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:57:05.160 - 12:54:01 PM; The speaker discussed the implications of religious use of land and structures, emphasizing that the term 'religious use' is undefined and could lead to issues with zoning regulations such as drainage, erosion, and wetland setbacks. They highlighted the current 51% usage rule but noted its ambiguity, particularly in cases where a house used by someone serving a religious organization might be considered.
HB265: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:58:34.440 - 12:55:30 PM; The speaker addressed the issue of wetland setbacks and the character of neighborhoods in zoning decisions. They explained that under existing law, wetland setbacks could be permitted, but aesthetic considerations could lead to variance denials. They also mentioned the potential for litigation and the resources involved, suggesting that the current law helps avoid such legal battles.
HB265: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:59:37.119 - 12:56:33 PM; The speaker continued discussing the zoning regulations, emphasizing that repealing the current law could lead to more lawsuits. They noted that the existing law sets specific parameters for religious structures, such as height restrictions, which should not be repealed as they are already part of zoning ordinances.
HB265: Unnamed Speaker Information Only01:00:36.359 - 12:57:32 PM; The speaker argued against repealing the existing law, stating that zoning boards should not deny variances based on neighborhood character. They mentioned the resources required for legal action and suggested withdrawing the motion to repeal the law to avoid further disagreement.
HB592: State Representative Ross Barry, representing Hillsboro, Deering, and Washington Support01:06:10.039 - 1:03:06 PM; Representative Barry introduced HB592, which focuses on bail reform. The bill removes magistrates, lowers the standard of review to probable cause plus dangerousness, and addresses 12 major crimes with a presumption of detention. It also ensures that individuals held have a right to see a judge within 36 hours and prohibits holding someone solely based on their inability to afford bail. Barry highlighted the need for reform due to incidents involving individuals released on bail committing serious crimes, including a murder in Bedford and the case of Daniel Whitmore in Manchester.
HB592: Representative Jennifer Rhodes, representing Winchester, Richmond, Swanzey, Troy, and Fitzwilliam Support01:11:22.679 - 1:08:18 PM; Representative Rhodes supported HB592, emphasizing the efforts made in the previous term to address concerns about the 2018 bail reform. She noted improvements such as ensuring bail commissioners are paid and trained, and the ability to track individuals out on bail. Rhodes stressed that the bill explicitly prohibits holding someone due to inability to pay bail and highlighted the elimination of magistrates, who have limited authority in bail hearings.
HB592: Representative Jonathan Morton, Hillsborough County District 39, Manchester Support01:14:10.560 - 1:11:06 PM; Representative Morton supports HB592, emphasizing that the bill enhances public safety by ensuring liberty and justice for all, not just for criminals. He argues that the bill is well thought out and does not disproportionately affect people based on income. He cites recent violent incidents in Manchester to underline the necessity of the bill to save lives.
HB592: Patrick Sullin, Executive Director, New Hampshire Association of Chiefs of Police, retired Chief of Police in Goffstown Support01:15:53.690 - 1:12:49 PM; Patrick Sullin supports HB592, stating that the purpose of bail is to ensure court appearance and public safety. He criticizes the 2018 bail reform changes, noting that they have led to dangerous individuals being released. He supports the bill's provisions for detention based on failure to appear, violation of bail conditions, or additional criminal conduct. Sullin emphasizes the need to stop habitual reoffenders and mentions unanimous support from the association's members.
HB592: Jason Henry, Superintendent, Rockingham County Jail Information Only01:19:30.719 - 1:16:26 PM; Jason Henry expresses concerns about the bill's provisions on preventive detention for reasons of suicide and acute depression. He argues that jails are not equipped to handle such cases effectively, as they lack the necessary facilities and resources to deal with mental health issues.
HB592: Superintendent King, Carroll County House of Corrections Information Only01:20:31.600 - 1:17:27 PM; Superintendent King supports Jason Henry's concerns about the bill's impact on mental health detainees. He mentions the lack of 24-hour nursing and mental health care in jails, which makes preventive detention for suicidal or acutely depressed individuals problematic. He also references a training initiative aimed at diverting mental health cases from jails.
HB592: Superintendent King, Carroll County House of Corrections Information Only01:22:28.600 - 1:19:24 PM; Superintendent King expressed concerns about the interpretation of the bill's language regarding threats of suicide and acute depression as evidence of posing a danger. He highlighted the subjective nature of these assessments and the potential for inconsistent application by bail commissioners or magistrates. He cited an example from Rockingham County where a magistrate released an individual despite the prosecutor's concerns about public safety. King emphasized the need for a team approach to determine the validity of such mental health claims and expressed worry about the potential for exacerbating mental health issues if individuals are held in jail without proper evaluation.
HB592: Representative from Rockingham County Correctional Facility Information Only01:25:04.679 - 1:22:00 PM; The representative from Rockingham County Correctional Facility discussed the potential financial burden on the facility if the bill leads to more individuals being held due to threats of suicide or acute depression. They noted that while their facility has a robust mental health department, the increased number of such cases could still lead to higher costs, particularly if individuals need to be sent to a hospital for evaluation before being brought to the jail. They suggested that the bill might exacerbate mental health issues if not properly managed.
HB592: Representative from Carroll County Information Only01:26:13.199 - 1:23:09 PM; The representative from Carroll County discussed the resource challenges faced by smaller jails in dealing with mental health issues, particularly on weekends when mental health staff are not available. They mentioned the need to send individuals to hospitals like Huggins Hospital, which ties up law enforcement resources. They emphasized the potential cost implications and the need for additional funding to level set resources across counties to handle the increased demand that might result from the bill.
HB592: Representative from Carroll County House of Corrections Information Only01:29:28.320 - 1:26:24 PM; The representative from Carroll County House of Corrections explained their current procedures for handling inmates expressing suicidal thoughts. They noted that the facility contracts with a third-party medical provider and has varying levels of checks depending on the situation. They highlighted the challenges faced on weekends and holidays when mental health staff are not available, leading to the need to send individuals to hospitals. They expressed concern about the potential increase in such cases due to the bill and the resulting increase in paperwork and resource allocation.
HB592: Representative from Carroll County House of Corrections Information Only01:31:45.360 - 1:28:41 PM; The representative further discussed the staffing challenges when an officer must accompany an inmate to the hospital, which can last from a minimum of four hours to several days. This situation significantly impacts the jail's staffing and overall security, especially at night when staffing is already limited. They emphasized the burden on resources and the potential risks to the facility when officers are required to be away for extended periods.
HB592: Representative from Carroll County House of Corrections Information Only01:33:13.760 - 1:30:09 PM; The speaker expressed concerns about the potential impact of the bail reform on mental health issues within the jail system. They noted that jails already deal with individuals experiencing mental health crises, including suicidal thoughts and acute depression. The concern is that if the criteria for preventative detention include mental health issues like acute depression and suicidal thoughts, it might lead to an increase in the number of people detained, thereby increasing the burden on jails. They highlighted the existing challenges where police often bring individuals to the jail instead of directly to hospitals for mental health evaluations due to resource constraints. The speaker emphasized that while they support the reform, they want to ensure that mental health considerations are not the sole factor in detention decisions, as this could exacerbate the use of jails as de facto mental health facilities.
HB592: Committee Members Vote01:39:28.599 - 1:36:24 PM; The committee moved to go into an executive session to discuss HB592. A motion was made and seconded to pass the bill as is. There was a brief discussion where a member expressed support for the bill, emphasizing the need to keep dangerous individuals detained and ensuring that resources are available to support this. The motion to pass HB592 was approved unanimously.
HB265: Committee Members Vote02:02:09.800 - 1:59:05 PM; The committee discussed HB265 and a motion was made and seconded to recommend it as inexpedient to legislate (ITL). There was no further discussion, and the motion passed with no opposition.
SB38: Committee Members Vote02:03:23.679 - 2:00:19 PM; The committee discussed SB38, which deals with the separation of men and women in certain facilities. A motion was made and seconded to pass the bill. The discussion included concerns about privacy and safety, with one member citing personal observations about the fairness in sports and locker room privacy. Another member opposed the bill, citing the overwhelming public opposition and the potential rollback of non-discrimination legislation. The motion to pass SB38 was approved with a vote of three to two.
SB268 2025-1044s: Committee Members Vote02:05:45.880 - 2:02:41 PM; The committee discussed SB268, similar to SB38, focusing on gender separation in sports. A motion was made and seconded to pass the bill with amendment 2025-1044s. The discussion included personal observations about fairness in sports. The amendment and the bill as amended were passed with no opposition.
SB260: Committee Members Vote02:07:54.280 - 2:04:50 PM; The committee discussed SB260, which deals with abortion rights. A motion was made and seconded to recommend it as inexpedient to legislate (ITL). The discussion included arguments about the substantive changes the bill would bring, with some members arguing that it would affirm a right to abortion up to 24 weeks, which is not currently explicitly stated in law. The motion to recommend ITL passed with no opposition.
SB260: Committee Members Information Only02:09:22.840 - 2:06:18 PM; The committee members continued their discussion on the application of the law regarding SB260. There was a debate on whether the law would represent a substantive change by providing an affirmative right to something that was not previously available. The discussion was cut short as they moved to vote on an ITL (Inexpedient to Legislate) motion. The vote on the ITL motion was taken, with some members in favor and some opposed. Following the vote, a motion to come out of the executive session was made and seconded, and the committee moved out of the executive session.

Gannon, Bill(Chairman)(R)[C+]2024	Abbas, Daryl(V Chairman)(R)[C+]2024	Altschiller, Debra(D)[CT]2024
McConkey, Mark(R)	Reardon, Tara(D)